this is an interesting story. Because under the circumstances, hosting a BLM discussion in front of a Blue LIves Matter flag seems like a big fat FU to everyone else on the Zoom. Should people have gone as far as demanding his resignation is a question that probably deserves more discussion. But it's not as though somebody just found out he had this flag in his office at home and "canceled" him. The chief made a choice to use a provocative symbol as his Zoom background, especially given that it wasn't just some random discussion of campus safety. It was a BLM meeting for jeebus sake.
I'm trying to think what would happen to me if I got on a company Zoom meeting on BLM, diversity, systemic racism and I chose to put the thin blue line flag behind me (let's say I come from a family of cops and I want to show them "support").
At the very least the chief was being a provocative ******* on a sensitive subject. Should "free speech" protect someone in the role of police chief even as he does something that is obviously going to raise tensions on campus, not reduce them.
Again, seems like a pretty weak example of liberal overreaction. Maybe a bit of an overreaction, but the reaction was to a pretty obvious provocation.
He didn't use the flag as his zoom background. It was a gift and had been on his wall for who knows how long.
So, then you are supportive of his dismissal then?
you don't read everything in my posts do you? just the parts you object to I guess.
But I'll repeat that I think it was probably worthy of a discussion. The problem with a hot take on any of these issues is that you and I don't know the history of the parties in question, or any of the other important details necessary to give a definitive answer to a question like that.
So if I had to give a binary answer at this moment, I guess it would be no.
So, then you are supportive of his dismissal then?
you don't read everything in my posts do you? just the parts you object to I guess.
But I'll repeat that I think it was probably worthy of a discussion. The problem with a hot take on any of these issues is that you and I don't know the history of the parties in question, or any of the other important details necessary to give a definitive answer to a question like that.
So if I had to give a binary answer at this moment, I guess it would be no.
A ha! So you ARE against Black Lives Matter, then.
How is this exchanging of anecdotes supposed to work exactly? If the assertion being put forth was "people are often rigid, ungenerous, and inflexible in the face of people with different beliefs than theirs, and liberals are no exception" then citing anecdotes would support that claim. But instead, the claim seems to be something like "political liberals are uniquely intolerant," a claim which definitely needs a lot more than anecdotes to sustain -- especially since it's as easy to cite anecdotes of political conservatives being intolerant a**es. Are we supposed to have a running tally and see which side can put together the most anecdotes?
How is this exchanging of anecdotes supposed to work exactly? If the assertion being put forth was "people are often rigid, ungenerous, and inflexible in the face of people with different beliefs than theirs, and liberals are no exception" then citing anecdotes would support that claim. But instead, the claim seems to be something like "political liberals are uniquely intolerant," a claim which definitely needs a lot more than anecdotes to sustain -- especially since it's as easy to cite anecdotes of political conservatives being intolerant a**es. Are we supposed to have a running tally and see which side can put together the most anecdotes?
there does seem to be a lot more hand-wringing about it on "the left." Even Michelle Goldberg in the NYT today (whom I usually agree with) wrote a pretty thinly supported critique of left wing "cancel culture."
Her evidence appears to be mostly a claim from a professor who says 100 of his mostly liberal leaning grad students are afraid their job prospects will be hurt by running afoul of some non-specific leftist orthodoxy.
She also says this about a recent notorious case of "canceling":
Civis has denied that Shor was fired for a tweet, but an employee told The Atlantic’s Yascha Mounk that the company’s chief executive said, in a staff meeting, “something along the lines of freedom of speech is important, but he had to take a stand with our staff, clients, and people of color."
It should be said that many people on the left, including some who are often dismissive of the idea of left-wing illiberalism, condemned Shor’s firing. Surely one reason this episode has been invoked so often is that there aren’t many comparable examples of such obvious social justice overreach.
As I mentioned earlier sometimes it seems the more people try to argue that the "left" has a "free speech problem" the more the seem to prove otherwise by the degree they need to reach for examples of it.
How is this exchanging of anecdotes supposed to work exactly? If the assertion being put forth was "people are often rigid, ungenerous, and inflexible in the face of people with different beliefs than theirs, and liberals are no exception" then citing anecdotes would support that claim. But instead, the claim seems to be something like "political liberals are uniquely intolerant," a claim which definitely needs a lot more than anecdotes to sustain -- especially since it's as easy to cite anecdotes of political conservatives being intolerant a**es. Are we supposed to have a running tally and see which side can put together the most anecdotes?
there does seem to be a lot more hand-wringing about it on "the left." Even Michelle Goldberg in the NYT today (whom I usually agree with) wrote a pretty thinly supported critique of left wing "cancel culture."
Her evidence appears to be mostly a claim from a professor who says 100 of his mostly liberal leaning grad students are afraid their job prospects will be hurt by running afoul of some non-specific leftist orthodoxy.
She also says this about a recent notorious case of "canceling":
Civis has denied that Shor was fired for a tweet, but an employee told The Atlantic’s Yascha Mounk that the company’s chief executive said, in a staff meeting, “something along the lines of freedom of speech is important, but he had to take a stand with our staff, clients, and people of color."
It should be said that many people on the left, including some who are often dismissive of the idea of left-wing illiberalism, condemned Shor’s firing. Surely one reason this episode has been invoked so often is that there aren’t many comparable examples of such obvious social justice overreach.
As I mentioned earlier sometimes it seems the more people try to argue that the "left" has a "free speech problem" the more the seem to prove otherwise by the degree they need to reach for examples of it.
I'm not sure what is odd about that. That is a recent example of someone being fired for posting an academic study.
And you left out the most interesting quote:
“At least some employees and clients of Civis Analytics complained that Shor’s tweet threatened their safety"
While you see calls for cancelling across the political spectrum, the concept that speech is threatening or equals violence seems to be uniquely on the left.
terp said: While you see calls for cancelling across the political spectrum, the concept that speech is threatening or equals violence seems to be uniquely on the left.
Mr. Wayman, the city administrator, has told other Selah leaders that he wants to protect the city from the “mayhem and evil” seen in places like Seattle, where a series of protests led to confrontations between Black Lives Matter protesters and the police.
terp said: While you see calls for cancelling across the political spectrum, the concept that speech is threatening or equals violence seems to be uniquely on the left.
Mr. Wayman, the city administrator, has told other Selah leaders that he wants to protect the city from the “mayhem and evil” seen in places like Seattle, where a series of protests led to confrontations between Black Lives Matter protesters and the police.
While you see calls for cancelling across the political spectrum, the concept that speech is threatening or equals violence seems to be uniquely on the left.
actually it doesn't. Unless you spend lots of time reading right wing sites that catalog every instance on the planet.
I saw that as well. But I didn't post it, because I figure the way to fight argument by anecdote isn't to post competing anecdotes.
The people who study this stuff (and I'm not going to search for the studies again because I've posted them in the past) and keep track of how often it happens come to this conclusion -- yes, suppression of speech happens on occasion in this country, and we should be vigilant to protect free speech. But no it's not widespread and it's not even close to something you would call a "crisis." But hey, what do they know? They're just collecting data and not reading the Campus Reform.
from a quick look at the site, I don't think it has a free speech agenda.