Not the firings, but the effort to pressure employers.
And it's really not in doubt; the coordination is real and public. I have seen many conservative pundits be very open about it (and preemptively engage with the "isn't this the same cancel culture you used to hate" argument).
What an appalling comment. You can’t possibly justify what you’re doing so you pretend it’s something “the left” did first. Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?
> Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?
Did the right? What incidents are you referring to?
You are correct in your assumption that I am a conservative, but I abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right as much as anyone. But the fact remains that the roots of this behavior are in men like Foucault and Marcuse, who were squarely on the left.
So just to be clear - by "abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right" you mean you did not vote for the current crop societal arsonists and otherwise generally denounce them, right? I ask because there is a common disingenuous pattern of people claiming to distance themselves from the methods or other things they find distasteful (eg the profligate deficit spending), but ultimately still falling in line with support.
Except there weren't really any mass harassment, rape and death threat, and firing campaigns being coordinated against ordinary people for not sufficiently mourning someone. Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein.
Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays either an intense naivete or a supporter of this pre-pogrom behavior.
Maybe some of them knelt voluntarily. But what would have happened if they hadn't. To me at the time there seemed to be a lot of social pressure to "kneel" and accept the narrative and the will of the mob.
I fear I've been misunderstood, or at least over-interpreted.
> mass harassment, rape and death threat
From what I've seen (and notwithstanding the claims in TFA, which are unsupported by evidence other than allegations), these things aren't happening this time either, and the voices organizing the firing campaigns are against them.
In particular, Ms. Gilmore's story cannot be reconciled with the evidence available to me.
I have in some places seen dehumanizing rhetoric. This is of course still not okay, but it clearly comes from a place of genuine hurt.
Also, my standard objection here: telling people that you hope a terrible thing happens to them is not acceptable, but it is also objectively not a "threat", and it bothers me when it's falsely characterized that way.
> for not sufficiently mourning someone
This is not a reasonable representation of the cause of action. We're talking about people who outright celebrate Kirk's death or insinuate that it was somehow deserved.
> Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein.
Strongly disagree. Matt Rose, James Damore, the list goes on and on (but I've left behind the days when I kept track in any serious way).
> Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays
I feel much the same about people who equate a guy getting killed for his political beliefs with people losing their job for expressing ideology that can reasonably be considered incompatible with doing the job.
(I'm sure there are people outside the professions I mentioned in the other thread getting targeted. As I already said, I oppose that.)
Ah yes, the dangerously effective leftist power-grabbing playbook. This is the playbook with accomplishments like:
- Losing two Supreme Court nominations because the opposing party said so, refusing to pack the court in response (also see: next bullet)
- Failing to make general legislative progress by having two critical senators in their party refuse to caucus with them, with both eventually leaving the party entirely
- Controlling less than half of state legislatures in the whole country, less than half of all state governors
- Running unpopular candidates for president 3 times in a row and losing 2/3 easily winnable campaigns over it
- Allowing their unpopular presidential candidate to decide to drop out at the last minute rather than convincing him to do it with enough time to do a proper primary and grassroots campaigning
- Sitting around for years instead of expediting prosecution of Trump for obvious crimes (e.g., classified documents case, Jan. 9 insurrection case) before he could return to office
- Tossing a bucket of quicksand onto voter enthusiasm by splitting the party over the Israel/Gaza conflict and other wedge issues
I actually hope the Republican Party adopts the left's "power-grabbing playbook" so that we can go back to having Democrats in control. Who knows, we might even get universal healthcare - last time, a public option was blocked by a single independent congressperson, which is too much power for the power-grabbing leftists to handle!
Says a lot that the very first person listed on that 'charliesmurders.com' site isn't condemning or mocking Kirk at all but just expressing anxiety about the likelihood of a political backlash following his death. Even the people on 4chan were expressing confusion about this and saying her remarks seemed wholly innocuous.
This is terrible, but luckily we have a large and robust network of free speech activists who've spent years organizing against "Cancel Culture" and defending people from getting fired for controversial views. I'm sure they'll spring into action and defend these poor folks. Let's check in on how they're doing...
For sure. The doxing and firings and deplatforming over Covid views, Jan 6 and general Trump support etc were awful and people rightfully complained but this is equally as bad. The hypocrisy is astounding.
It's like we have abandoned all principals of fairness and charity in pursuit of our political enemies.
People of all stripes say dumb stuff on social media. Unless it's immediate calls to violent or illegal action, the repercussions should probably stay on social media in my view.
Not the firings, but the effort to pressure employers.
And it's really not in doubt; the coordination is real and public. I have seen many conservative pundits be very open about it (and preemptively engage with the "isn't this the same cancel culture you used to hate" argument).
My thoughts on the legitimacy of this, from another submission: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45234875
[flagged]
What an appalling comment. You can’t possibly justify what you’re doing so you pretend it’s something “the left” did first. Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?
> Did the left deport students because they wrote an op-ed article, or went to a protest? Did senior administration officials call for jailing opponents for thought crimes?
Did the right? What incidents are you referring to?
You are correct in your assumption that I am a conservative, but I abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right as much as anyone. But the fact remains that the roots of this behavior are in men like Foucault and Marcuse, who were squarely on the left.
So just to be clear - by "abhor the lunacy of the MAGA right" you mean you did not vote for the current crop societal arsonists and otherwise generally denounce them, right? I ask because there is a common disingenuous pattern of people claiming to distance themselves from the methods or other things they find distasteful (eg the profligate deficit spending), but ultimately still falling in line with support.
Except there weren't really any mass harassment, rape and death threat, and firing campaigns being coordinated against ordinary people for not sufficiently mourning someone. Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein.
Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays either an intense naivete or a supporter of this pre-pogrom behavior.
What about the stuff around George Floyd. Weren't people accosted and forced to kneel down and repent?
e.g. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8664345/Aggressive-...
https://twitter.com/i/status/1267283980514201610
https://twitter.com/i/status/1269043437275435016
Etc.
Maybe some of them knelt voluntarily. But what would have happened if they hadn't. To me at the time there seemed to be a lot of social pressure to "kneel" and accept the narrative and the will of the mob.
I fear I've been misunderstood, or at least over-interpreted.
> mass harassment, rape and death threat
From what I've seen (and notwithstanding the claims in TFA, which are unsupported by evidence other than allegations), these things aren't happening this time either, and the voices organizing the firing campaigns are against them.
In particular, Ms. Gilmore's story cannot be reconciled with the evidence available to me.
I have in some places seen dehumanizing rhetoric. This is of course still not okay, but it clearly comes from a place of genuine hurt.
Also, my standard objection here: telling people that you hope a terrible thing happens to them is not acceptable, but it is also objectively not a "threat", and it bothers me when it's falsely characterized that way.
> for not sufficiently mourning someone
This is not a reasonable representation of the cause of action. We're talking about people who outright celebrate Kirk's death or insinuate that it was somehow deserved.
> Most of the "cancel culture" stuff was overblown nonsense, the few real events were against massive public figures credibly accused of heinous things like Weinstein.
Strongly disagree. Matt Rose, James Damore, the list goes on and on (but I've left behind the days when I kept track in any serious way).
> Pretending this is in any way equivalent betrays
I feel much the same about people who equate a guy getting killed for his political beliefs with people losing their job for expressing ideology that can reasonably be considered incompatible with doing the job.
(I'm sure there are people outside the professions I mentioned in the other thread getting targeted. As I already said, I oppose that.)
Tf are you referring to
Ah yes, the dangerously effective leftist power-grabbing playbook. This is the playbook with accomplishments like:
- Losing two Supreme Court nominations because the opposing party said so, refusing to pack the court in response (also see: next bullet)
- Failing to make general legislative progress by having two critical senators in their party refuse to caucus with them, with both eventually leaving the party entirely
- Controlling less than half of state legislatures in the whole country, less than half of all state governors
- Running unpopular candidates for president 3 times in a row and losing 2/3 easily winnable campaigns over it
- Allowing their unpopular presidential candidate to decide to drop out at the last minute rather than convincing him to do it with enough time to do a proper primary and grassroots campaigning
- Sitting around for years instead of expediting prosecution of Trump for obvious crimes (e.g., classified documents case, Jan. 9 insurrection case) before he could return to office
- Tossing a bucket of quicksand onto voter enthusiasm by splitting the party over the Israel/Gaza conflict and other wedge issues
I actually hope the Republican Party adopts the left's "power-grabbing playbook" so that we can go back to having Democrats in control. Who knows, we might even get universal healthcare - last time, a public option was blocked by a single independent congressperson, which is too much power for the power-grabbing leftists to handle!
Don't feed the trolls
Says a lot that the very first person listed on that 'charliesmurders.com' site isn't condemning or mocking Kirk at all but just expressing anxiety about the likelihood of a political backlash following his death. Even the people on 4chan were expressing confusion about this and saying her remarks seemed wholly innocuous.
Are you saying they're just harassing people they don't like?
They were looking for targets to make examples of and didn't vet their targets very carefully.
This is terrible, but luckily we have a large and robust network of free speech activists who've spent years organizing against "Cancel Culture" and defending people from getting fired for controversial views. I'm sure they'll spring into action and defend these poor folks. Let's check in on how they're doing...
For sure. The doxing and firings and deplatforming over Covid views, Jan 6 and general Trump support etc were awful and people rightfully complained but this is equally as bad. The hypocrisy is astounding.
It's like we have abandoned all principals of fairness and charity in pursuit of our political enemies.
People of all stripes say dumb stuff on social media. Unless it's immediate calls to violent or illegal action, the repercussions should probably stay on social media in my view.