150 public figures sign open letter decrying cancel culture

[Organized States]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Yes, basic human rights stuff.

Uhh, no. Human rights aren't violated when someone loses their job for being a racist.

Take for example, my job, that being an officer in the profession of arms. My responsibilities specifically revolve around my ability to ensure good order and discipline among my troops and to ensure that they are combat ready to prosecute and destroy the enemy. In my case, I cannot tolerate racially-charged and vile speech coming from any of my troops, as that fundamentally violates that good order and discipline. When I remove one of my subordinates from that position, I'm not violating their human rights. I'm simply providing them with the professional consequences for their actions.

This exists in the same way in the business world. Every private corporation has a brand, and when its employees engage in behavior that is contrary to the public's trust or faith in that brand's value, that brand has to provide those employees with professional consequences, as they've hurt the company and its brand.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Yes, basic human rights stuff.

Uhh, no. Human rights aren't violated when someone loses their job for being a racist.

Take for example, my job, that being an officer in the profession of arms. My responsibilities specifically revolve around my ability to ensure good order and discipline among my troops and to ensure that they are combat ready to prosecute and destroy the enemy. In my case, I cannot tolerate racially-charged and vile speech coming from any of my troops, as that fundamentally violates that good order and discipline. When I remove one of my subordinates from that position, I'm not violating their human rights. I'm simply providing them with the professional consequences for their actions.

Yes, they are.

[Organized States]

Uhh, no. Human rights aren't violated when someone loses their job for being a racist.

Take for example, my job, that being an officer in the profession of arms. My responsibilities specifically revolve around my ability to ensure good order and discipline among my troops and to ensure that they are combat ready to prosecute and destroy the enemy. In my case, I cannot tolerate racially-charged and vile speech coming from any of my troops, as that fundamentally violates that good order and discipline. When I remove one of my subordinates from that position, I'm not violating their human rights. I'm simply providing them with the professional consequences for their actions.

Yes, they are.

Three word responses aren't exactly the best way to start a discussion. If you want to provide me with specific examples of how and why that's a violation of someone's human rights, I would be more than willing to listen to you. Until such time, however, I am going to continue to be willing and able to provide people with professional and appropriate consequences for the actions that they take.

[Diarcesia]

Yes, basic human rights stuff.

Uhh, no. Human rights aren't violated when someone loses their job for being a racist.

Take for example, my job, that being an officer in the profession of arms. My responsibilities specifically revolve around my ability to ensure good order and discipline among my troops and to ensure that they are combat ready to prosecute and destroy the enemy. In my case, I cannot tolerate racially-charged and vile speech coming from any of my troops, as that fundamentally violates that good order and discipline. When I remove one of my subordinates from that position, I'm not violating their human rights. I'm simply providing them with the professional consequences for their actions.

This exists in the same way in the business world. Every private corporation has a brand, and when its employees engage in behavior that is contrary to the public's trust or faith in that brand's value, that brand has to provide those employees with professional consequences, as they've hurt the company and its brand.

The military is an exception, since you're employed 24/7. What about those that expressed their views and at the same time not representing their company?

[Rostavykhan]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Imagine being a Leftist or Liberal who attacks the work opportunities of others by weaponizing mobs and pressuring their bourgeois corporate employers to give them the boot, all because they have an unpopular opinion that you find slightly distasteful.

Just because it's not being supported by a guy named MacArthy doesn't make it any less witch-hunty and shady.

[Organized States]

Uhh, no. Human rights aren't violated when someone loses their job for being a racist.

Take for example, my job, that being an officer in the profession of arms. My responsibilities specifically revolve around my ability to ensure good order and discipline among my troops and to ensure that they are combat ready to prosecute and destroy the enemy. In my case, I cannot tolerate racially-charged and vile speech coming from any of my troops, as that fundamentally violates that good order and discipline. When I remove one of my subordinates from that position, I'm not violating their human rights. I'm simply providing them with the professional consequences for their actions.

This exists in the same way in the business world. Every private corporation has a brand, and when its employees engage in behavior that is contrary to the public's trust or faith in that brand's value, that brand has to provide those employees with professional consequences, as they've hurt the company and its brand.

The military is an exception, since you're employed 24/7. What about those that expressed their views and at the same time not representing their company?

So keep in mind that my understanding of the business world is extremely limited (as I've spent most of my very short professional life in the military), but I tend to think that there are a multitude of opinions that cannot be expressed without proving damaging to the brand of a corporation. When it comes to matters such as race, gender, and other issues which tend to alienate a large portion of the population (which prove to be customers your employer can no longer have), I tend to think that these statements are difficult not associate with your employer.

Take for instance the recent resignation of the lead writer on whatever Tucker Carlson calls his show now. Fox News, which has long struggled with an inability to broaden its viewership beyond a very specific demographic, cannot be seen to employ someone who's been publicly exposed as making statements that are contrary to the network's attempts to re-brand, even if he was making those statements in secret.

[Organized States]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Imagine being a Leftist or Liberal who attacks the work opportunities of others by weaponizing mobs and pressuring their bourgeois corporate employers to give them the boot, all because they have an unpopular opinion that you find slightly distasteful.

Just because it's not being supported by a guy named MacArthy doesn't make it any less witch-hunty and shady.

I'm not a leftist or a liberal by any means. I'm not a registered member of a political party (as I believe that's contrary to the apolitical nature of my profession).

Racism is not an opinion. It's a hateful ideology that's been used to diminish people, such as myself, and deprive them of their legal rights for centuries in the United States. I have every right as a consumer to chose to associate with brands that reflect my values and I should have every right as an employer to ensure that the people my company hires provide a positive image for my corporation.

[Galloism]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Being called out is of course appropriate.

Targeting their employer for views expressed privately are not unless, as in your case with the military, they are acting in their employment capacity 24/7.

And if they are acting in their employment capacity 24/7, then they need to be paid 24/7. That's about 6800 hours of overtime per year.

So ideally, if an employer fired someone for actions taken off the clock (refusing to be sexist, refusing to be racist, attending a pride parade, a blm protest, making a sign that says blue lives matter, or its ok to be white, etc), then they immediately become liable for 128 hours per week of overtime, for the duration of the employee's tenure, plus interest. If someone is representing you 24/7, you better pay them 24/7.

Otherwise they're not an employee. They're a slave.

[Organized States]

Imagine being fundamentally opposed to the idea of being called out for saying racist or hateful shit and having consequences for those actions.

Freedom of Speech does not equal Freedom from Consequences.

Being called out is of course appropriate.

Targeting their employer for views expressed privately are not unless, as in your case with the military, they are acting in their employment capacity 24/7.

And if they are acting in their employment capacity 24/7, then they need to be paid 24/7. That's about 6800 hours of overtime per year.

So ideally, if an employer fired someone for actions taken off the clock (refusing to be sexist, refusing to be racist, attending a pride parade, a blm protest, making a sign that says blue lives matter, or its ok to be white, etc), then they immediately become liable for 128 hours per week of overtime, for the duration of the employee's tenure, plus interest. If someone is representing you 24/7, you better pay them 24/7.

Otherwise they're not an employee. They're a slave.

Here's the thing though, is we've entered a society where there is no such thing as a private statement made anymore. The statements that people make on Facebook can be viewed 24/7 and their association with their employers can be viewed 24/7, including while they're at work.

[Galloism]

Being called out is of course appropriate.

Targeting their employer for views expressed privately are not unless, as in your case with the military, they are acting in their employment capacity 24/7.

And if they are acting in their employment capacity 24/7, then they need to be paid 24/7. That's about 6800 hours of overtime per year.

So ideally, if an employer fired someone for actions taken off the clock (refusing to be sexist, refusing to be racist, attending a pride parade, a blm protest, making a sign that says blue lives matter, or its ok to be white, etc), then they immediately become liable for 128 hours per week of overtime, for the duration of the employee's tenure, plus interest. If someone is representing you 24/7, you better pay them 24/7.

Otherwise they're not an employee. They're a slave.

Here's the thing though, is we've entered a society where there is no such thing as a private statement made anymore. The statements that people make on Facebook can be viewed 24/7 and their association with their employers can be viewed 24/7, including while they're at work.

And if the employer is going to dictate their behavior and actions 24/7, they need to be paying them 24/7, with all the overtime it entails, or it should be considered wage theft.

[Organized States]

Here's the thing though, is we've entered a society where there is no such thing as a private statement made anymore. The statements that people make on Facebook can be viewed 24/7 and their association with their employers can be viewed 24/7, including while they're at work.

And if the employer is going to dictate their behavior and actions 24/7, they need to be paying them 24/7, with all the overtime it entails, or it should be considered wage theft.

I think its safe to assume that salaried employees, those with stock options, those with total compensation packages, those with healthcare and insurance benefits that they use 24/7, are paid 24/7.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Yes, they are.

Three word responses aren't exactly the best way to start a discussion. If you want to provide me with specific examples of how and why that's a violation of someone's human rights, I would be more than willing to listen to you. Until such time, however, I am going to continue to be willing and able to provide people with professional and appropriate consequences for the actions that they take.

There's no discussion here.
Its in the name "freedom of speech".
Not "its only okay to say popular or fashionable things"

You're just wrong, looking for excuses to willingly cause harm to people.

[Galloism]

And if the employer is going to dictate their behavior and actions 24/7, they need to be paying them 24/7, with all the overtime it entails, or it should be considered wage theft.

I think its safe to assume that salaried employees, those with stock options, those with total compensation packages, those with healthcare and insurance benefits that they use 24/7, are paid 24/7.

If their contract dictates such, and they're paid at least minimum wage x 12100 per year. Otherwise, they should be considered to be illegally paid less than minimum wage.

In Washington state, that would set the absolute minimum floor salary at $145,200 per year. California with its stricter overtime rules would be $210,240 per annum, minimum floor.

[Organized States]

Three word responses aren't exactly the best way to start a discussion. If you want to provide me with specific examples of how and why that's a violation of someone's human rights, I would be more than willing to listen to you. Until such time, however, I am going to continue to be willing and able to provide people with professional and appropriate consequences for the actions that they take.

There's no discussion here.
Its in the name "freedom of speech".
Not "its only okay to say popular or fashionable things"

You're just wrong, looking for excuses to willingly cause harm to people.

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

I'm not looking for an excuse to willingly cause harm to people at all and I would ask that you avoid continuing such unfounded attacks on my character.

[Proctopeo]

There's no discussion here.
Its in the name "freedom of speech".
Not "its only okay to say popular or fashionable things"

You're just wrong, looking for excuses to willingly cause harm to people.

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

I'm not looking for an excuse to willingly cause harm to people at all and I would ask that you avoid continuing such unfounded attacks on my character.

That is immaterial, your actions are unprofessional and you are officially #cancelled

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

There's no discussion here.
Its in the name "freedom of speech".
Not "its only okay to say popular or fashionable things"

You're just wrong, looking for excuses to willingly cause harm to people.

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

I'm not looking for an excuse to willingly cause harm to people at all and I would ask that you avoid continuing such unfounded attacks on my character.

Again we also used to enslave people. It doesn't make it right.

You just provided an example of why my attacks on your character are valid.

[Galloism]

There's no discussion here.
Its in the name "freedom of speech".
Not "its only okay to say popular or fashionable things"

You're just wrong, looking for excuses to willingly cause harm to people.

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

Also, assault and battery, punishable by law.

[Farnhamia]

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

I'm not looking for an excuse to willingly cause harm to people at all and I would ask that you avoid continuing such unfounded attacks on my character.

Again we also used to enslave people. It doesn't make it right.

You just provided an example of why my attacks on your character are valid.

We have a saying in these here parts, "Attack the post, not the poster." Take that to heart.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Again we also used to enslave people. It doesn't make it right.

You just provided an example of why my attacks on your character are valid.

We have a saying in these here parts, "Attack the post, not the poster." Take that to heart.

Noted boss.

[Utceforp]

Jesus Christ, it must have been hard to type that poll and masturbate at the same time.

Also, of course that fucking TERF Rowling signed the letter, just another reason to hate her.

[Organized States]

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

Also, assault and battery, punishable by law.

It totally is and I accept that reality.

[Organized States]

Except it's not. Freedom of Speech and Expression has been and can be abridged for dozens of different reasons previously and there have been consequences, both professional and legal, for almost all of those reasons (note the existence of both tort and libel law etc). I never said that it's not okay to express those beliefs. I said that you shouldn't expect to get off without social and professional consequences for such actions.

For example, if someone said something vulgar about my mother, I would punch them in the face. That's not a violation of their freedom of speech. That's providing them the social consequences of their actions.

I'm not looking for an excuse to willingly cause harm to people at all and I would ask that you avoid continuing such unfounded attacks on my character.

That is immaterial, your actions are unprofessional and you are officially #cancelled

Seriously considered adding this to my bio, but on that note, I do expect to face social and professional consequences if I do something wrong.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

Also, assault and battery, punishable by law.

It totally is and I accept that reality.

Congratulations then, you've provided a worse outcome, than of you did nothing.

[Plzen]

-snip-

I have to agree with the opposition on this one.

Freedom is freedom from consequences. If it isn’t that, what exactly even is freedom?

[Picairn]

A free society can't censor itself into progress. People being punished just because they said something, which modern activists preceive as offensive, 10 years ago is ridiculous. People change their opinions all the time.