The opportunities afforded to the various groups you mentioned are still super unequal. It’s built into society and didn’t just go away when the Civil Rights Act was signed (Title VII doesn’t even apply to companies of less than 15 employees) and that was less than 50 years ago.
Some states protect classes like religion, political party membership, marriage status, illness & orientation by statute. Most states don’t.
What is meant by “diversity of thought?”
It’s a protected class in at least a few states (looks like NY & CA plus DC & PR, with a hilarious exception in CA).
> Ditto for "illness" (I think you meant 'disablity'?)
I mean any medical condition that falls short of ADA protection (which also doesn’t apply when there are less than 15 employees)
No one is stopped from having diverse thoughts - you can always think whatever you want.
But why do you think you have the right to publicly & globally tweet it without anyone responding to it? Are you looking solely for supportive replies? And zero debate or criticism?
The irony is that all the people fighting “cancel culture” with their “diverse” thoughts really seem to mainly just have hot-takes that are racist and sexist. Nothing really diverse…
Criticism and responses would be fine. Bloodthirsty attempts at ruining the persons life/career aren't, yet they're extremely common. As others have said, it adds way too much risk to non-anonymous public discourse, where if it happens that something you said, no matter how innocuous, snowballs for whatever reason, you're screwed. So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online.
I don't even think it's a matter of people really trying to punish intolerant people, it's that mobs are fun to be in, so randoms do just hop in for fun and a rush of moral superiority. You could "cancel" literally anyone over anything if you got enough traction to start going "viral."
That is always the majority of comments. Just like not all tweeters are being cancelled.
> So the only reasonable thing to do is just not express opinions online.
And yet, here you and I are expressing our opinions and having a discussion.
Every single criticism I’ve heard is about policing the people who point out any problematic opinions. Truly ironic!
> You could "cancel" literally anyone over anything if you got enough traction to start going "viral."
Care to link to any real cases of non-racist/sexist/etc comments that got someone cancelled? Or are you just being facetious?
You and I haven't said anything controversial.
> Care to link to any real cases[...]
Nolan Bushnell got cancelled because Atari was allegedly sexist in the 70s, and got an award revoked for it. [1]
There's of course the infamous dongle joke fiasco at PyCon. [2]
James Damore got cancelled for the Google memo, and got fired for it. [3]
These are just a couple examples, and you could argue about whether or not these people are actually in the wrong (for the crime of having the wrong opinion), but they clearly don't deserve mob justice attempting to ruin their careers.
[1] https://www.theguardian.com/games/2018/feb/01/nolan-bushnell...
[2] https://techcrunch.com/2013/03/21/a-dongle-joke-that-spirale...
[3] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google%27s_Ideological_Echo_...
You’re the one who said anything could be controversial:
> where if it happens that something you said, no matter how innocuous, snowballs for whatever reason, you're screwed
I like how you “ [...] “ out the words racist/sexist and proceeded to list exactly those kind of cases.
> [1] … Bushnell holding company meetings in a hot tub and attempting to coax a female employee to join him
All he lost was an award. He’s still a successful millionaire.
> [2] “I really did not mean to offend anyone and I really do regret the comment and how it made Adria feel. She had every right to report me to staff, and I defend her position”
[3] There’s way too much wrong with Damore’s actions, notwithstanding his actual memo. Do you really think it’s acceptable for someone to circulate such a misinformed screed in a company setting?
Plus, all of these people got jobs after the criticism died down. Like literally everyone else who’s ever been “cancelled”.
Okay, some things carry more risk than others, but the point I was trying to make is that crazy people can go for your neck (and exhort others to do the same) over any random thing, it's not limited to sexism/racism/whatever.
> I like how you “ [...] “ out the words [...]
I did it to save space, come on now.
You're missing the point of the cases I listed. It's not that they were able to recover from the attack, or were rich enough that it didn't materially matter, it's that it shouldn't even be happening in the first place. It seems like you've moved the goalposts from "cancel culture only happens against racists and sexists, and is a natural backlash to that" to "okay, mobs tried to ruin these peoples' livelihoods, but they ultimately got jobs again so it's ok." You're also implying that losing one's job is some sort of no big deal, when in actuality it can change your life. All three cases I listed, IMO, were minor things that spiraled into ridiculous proportions because of mob furor.
Addressing each case individually:
1. Okay, Nolan is successful and rich, therefore the attack can't hurt him that much, but what if he wasn't? It doesn't make this sort of behavior okay because he can weather it.
2. The guy apologizing to Adria in public is just him being gracious and trying to move on without poking the beehive again. Nolan did the same about the award. They certainly "learned their lesson" from this debacle I'm sure!
3. Misguided and clumsy maybe, but Damore's motivations weren't sexist and neither was his memo. The fact that he became a public spectacle over it and had his character assassinated is ridiculous, and even if he got a new job, he's always going to be remembered as the sexist behind the Google memo.
The point here is that it's not always just cases of people being explicitly racist and getting backlash over it-- it's disproportionate punishment for small slights which causes everyone to be afraid to say anything.
Slippery slope is a really weak argument.
> It seems like you've moved the goalposts
I didn’t? I showed how all 3 were incidents focused on sexism, with Damore also being racist.
> It doesn't make this sort of behavior okay
He never lost his job, just an award - in response to actual sexual harassment. How are you seriously asking if backlash is acceptable to his obviously /unacceptable/ behavior?
> They certainly "learned their lesson" from this debacle I'm sure!
We can argue forever if they really meant it, but how will you know?
> Damore's motivations weren't sexist and neither was his memo
Alright, that’s your opinion. Clearly others don’t agree with you. That’s the point.
“Who gets to define racism” is a critical question: https://contexts.org/blog/who-gets-to-define-whats-racist/
> Rather than actually dismantling white supremacy or meaningfully empowering people of color, efforts often seem to be oriented towards consolidating social and cultural capital in the hands of the ‘good’ whites.
Likewise for “sexism.” My mother’s feminist credentials are unassailable: she got a college and graduate school education and had an independent career as a writer in a deeply Muslim country in the 1970s. But by Twitter standards, many of her views would be deemed “sexist” from her sex-negativity to her view of motherhood and its burdens as a defining characteristic of being a woman.
Absolutely, I agree that problematic views are global and not just American. However, could you link some examples of people getting "cancelled" for nuanced takes on niche potentially charged topics? Almost always, they're mainstream, textbook malicious rhetoric, no nuance whatsoever.
> But by Twitter standards, many of her views would be deemed “sexist”
You're missing the point - topics like racism & feminism evolve over time. That doesn't mean your mom needs to be "cancelled" despite her "unassailable credentials" - it just means that like everyone else, you need to learn more as the world changes.
Regardless, she has nothing to worry about - unless you're suggesting she is a prominent person in a position of influence, who regularly tweets hot-takes promoting her view on racism/feminism, while going on rampages bashing other's opinions or viewpoints. Because, let's be real - those are the kind of social media users that this debate is about. Eg, Elon Musk, JK Rowling. And again, none of these people are really "cancelled".
The majority of people who criticize virtue signaling possess no virtues whatsoever.
But I assume they're strongly correlated.
I.e. people who are against virture signaling want to get rid of it, because they got nothing to signal, and it makes them look bad in relation.
It's entirely reasonable to find these kind of people irritating and obnoxious.
Well, they I assume they aren't. I assume my assumption is more likely than your assumption. You should not just assume things and build your worldview from them.
> good things happening
Those are not similar.