So, the Vegas situation has at least yielded some hard evidence of something we were debating last week. That discussion got surprisingly heated, but perhaps this is a good occasion to simply show that the thing being discussed does in fact happen.
On this occasion, a CBS reporter wrote on Twitter that she had little sympathy for the victims because they were the kind of people who oppose gun control, or, as she put it, "Repugs" who were "gun toters." This led to calls for her to be fired, echoed across the right-wing side of Twitter today, which led to her in fact being fired by CBS.
I am as I said willing to forgo this kind of vengeance for expressing unpopular sentiments; maybe we even would benefit from a rule protecting private political expressions from employer reprisals. But either we would, or we would not; there can't be two standards. This time, a left-leaning journalist ended up having to play by the one most often applied to the right.
I stayed out of the discussion before, but I'm not sure Twitter is a good source for deciding that "this side" or "the other side" are calling for people to be fired over unpopular speech with any regularity.
ReplyDeleteMore than anything else, Twitter resembles full-blown Tourette's (or possibly some other borderline mental health problem). You're always going to be able to find someone on Twitter saying something extreme, ignorant, or idiotic, along with scads of uber-outragey people who are outraged by same.
I've seen people on the right call for people they disagree with to be fired, and by that I mean spokespeople for right-leaning groups, or Republican elected/appointed officials. To my mind, it's much more reasonable to label something like that, "folks on the right" than individuals on Twitter. Just my 2 cents. FWIW, how often can anyone say "X never happens"??? Of course X (and Y, and Z) happen. The real question is, "how often"?
Is X a random/rare occurrence or a frequent, go-to response to the slightest provocation?
That said, I completely agree with your point about not having two standards (one for those we like/agree with, and one for those we can't stand/disagree with). There's kind of a fine line between letting a business know you won't patronize them if they support truly nasty speech and demanding that that business fire the speaker. Not a huge fan of formal boycotts, but I will say that like many, I'm disgusted with the NFL right now and I have stayed away from Target ever since they decided to go all SJW. Watching a lot of baseball these days.
Expressing disapproval or writing a company to complain seem like private and appropriate decisions to me. Not so much a fan of the instant mob actions, whether online or IRL.
re: this -
ReplyDelete...maybe we even would benefit from a rule protecting private political expressions from employer reprisals...
What qualifies as private? If it's private, how do employers even find out, and how do enough people find out to pressure the employer or cause the speaker to feel ganged up upon?
Seems to me the vast majority of these cases are by nature extremely public, both by nature and by deliberate intent (Twitter, TV, radio, print, Facebook, etc.). People love having an audience until the audience doesn't love them back.
I agree with Cass that there is a world of difference between some random person expressing an opinion (who could be a troll or a sock puppet) and an identifiable person who is associated with an organisation.
ReplyDeleteExcusing the murder of some people seems to be beyond the pale.
"Excusing the murder of some people seems to be beyond the pale."
ReplyDeleteYeah, I figured nothing need be said- even CBS was going to see she had to go.
I would hope that most companies would not want to pay or be associated with an employee who is OK with mass murder (or has no sympathy for the victims)... so long as they are from the opposing party. I mean, it's not like They are Human Beings :p
ReplyDeleteNews organizations in particular can't afford to appear to tolerate actual partisan hatred of any sort. FWIW, I would almost certainly fire an employee who said something like that in public. It wouldn't take a public outcry, or even a single complaint. To me, it's a freedom of association issue.
And then you have morons who gloat over the hurricane damage in (mostly democrat) Houston as some sort of divine retribution for Trump's election. Hopefully, the embarrassment of having said something that ignorant constitutes its own form of chastisement.
Yikes! How messed up does one have to be to even *think* such a thing? To actually say it (in public) seems kind of unbalanced. Or perhaps just hateful (hate filled?).
I told people that going into public meetings like this was dangerous. They probably thought I was paranoid and ignored it though.
ReplyDeleteWell ignoring war advice may be wise, if they had been prepared for a war...
A lot of people missing good chances to shut up. (I will forever be in debt to Jacques Chirac for that bon mot).
ReplyDeleteCass:
ReplyDeleteI certainly agree with your opinion of Twitter, which I think is doing more damage to the Republic than almost anything else.
Note that I did not say, as you briefly characterize, "folks on the right." I said specifically, "the right-wing side of Twitter."
Twitter is poison.
All:
That said, the point here is just to establish some facts. I'm not even going as far in as 'were they right to suggest that...?' I just want to show that the claim that there are mobs ranging around demanding that people be fired for their political views is true. There are; here is one.
If we can agree to the facts, we can worry about the analysis of the facts. But first, we must agree to the facts. Saying that there are mobs who hunt for, and sometimes obtain, firings is true. That is the case.
I distinguish between, say, a car manufacturing executive who exults in the murder of Republicans, and a news executive who does so. A car company isn't trying to brand itself (however implausibly) as an unbiased reporter of news.
ReplyDeleteFor an car executive, maybe the equivalent corporate crime would be to tweet that she was unconcerned about oversized SUVs that spontaneously caught fire because they were mostly being purchased by Republicans who deserved to die. It would look bad in court.
"If we can agree to the facts, we can worry about the analysis of the facts. But first, we must agree to the facts."
ReplyDeleteBefore that, we must agree that such things as "facts" exist. That facts are distinct from "socially constructed consensus" or "hegemonic imposition of cultural norms on oppressed minorities" or all the other intellectual buzzwords that seem to pollute discussion in the past two decades. Facts exist, and yes, cultural paradigms exist, and sometimes the two are at odds.
But there are those who argue that facts are only what the winner of an argument chooses them to be. If that question isn't settled at step zero, then the "first" step is pointless.
I distinguish between, say, a car manufacturing executive who exults in the murder of Republicans, and a news executive who does so. A car company isn't trying to brand itself (however implausibly) as an unbiased reporter of news.
ReplyDeleteI started to say something like that this morning, but had to bail due to work stuff :p
Grim:
I didn't mean to imply that you were arguing that "folks on the right" regularly call for lefties to be fired for saying/doing the wrong thing. I definitely did think - perhaps mistakenly - that the previous discussion centered around whether "their side" calls for such firings much more than "our side" does.
I have no doubt that *people* on both sides support firing anyone whose beliefs offend them - it's a normal human tendency that isn't entirely unhealthy (within reasonable limits). Cultures that don't uphold their values and punish whatever is judged to be beyond the pale don't survive long. Culture, principles, and consequences can temper human nature, but not eliminate it entirely (just as laws against murder don't stop murder). Whether we're talking about laws or civil norms, enforcement is key.
Here's what I was reacting to: it makes no sense to me to argue over whether both sides do bad things (but if I were to do that, I think the distinction between random Tweeters - no matter how often retweeted - and official representatives is an important one). It's not clear to me that companies fire employees because of online mobs in cases like this where the statement (as douglas noted) is so contemptible that no reasonable group or person would wish to be associated with it or give the appearance of condoning it.
The whole free speech debate is so emotional - 1st A rights get tangled up with employment at will and freedom of association, public and private utterances are conflated, and durn it all, there is no sacred right to say/do things that outrage your fellow citizens, consequence-free! I am not even remotely interested in defending this woman's supposed "right" to be a jackass who shocks and wounds others for no good reason.
If she worked for me, I'd fire her immediately (no need for an online mob to call for her firing). I'd fire her because she has no idea that her words and actions affect people around her, and because she is a hate-filled loud mouth (and I don't want to work with people like that). I think that's OK, and it's OK if others judge me harshly for doing so.
Minor clarification:
ReplyDelete...I have no doubt that [there are some] *people* on both sides who support firing anyone whose beliefs offend them...
One more thought.
ReplyDeleteI detest online mobs. Social media (especially the venues that are constantly screeching, OOH!!! LOOK AT THIS SICK BURN!!!, or encouraging tweetstorms) remind me of a bunch of nasty children. On the other hand, I also really do not care for people who constantly push other people's buttons with every available finger and then cry like babies when other people object or take offense. I almost always feel sorry for these people when the pushback is harsh or smacks of bullying, but a BIG part of me also thinks, "Good Lord - what did you expect?" It's not always a question of whether you agree so much as whether it's an emotional subject that reliably brings out the worst in other people.
Balance is important, and so is a healthy respect for other people's sensibilities and values - even if the speaker doesn't share them. What usually sets these things off is a palpable air of hatred/contempt or a total lack of situational awareness (time and place). For example, I have been known to take the Lord's name in vain. Not proud of it, but doing so in church or around someone who is extremely devout is worse on multiple levels.
I can't understand what it is about the Internet that makes people forget that other people have feelings too. Often I'm torn between aggravation with people who seem to me to be almost deliberately tone deaf/clueless and the huffity-puffity overreactions of those they offend.
That said, ideas are important. Reputations are important, and worth defending. A business can't afford to employ people who give their customers legitimate reason to doubt their good will, honesty, integrity, or professionalism. Online mobs may be more of an excuse than an actual cause of these firings.
I mean, the lady in this example was a Vice President. I presume that level of responsibility comes with added, well, responsibility. I'm generally of the opinion that the high should be kept to standards more strictly than the low (although, practically, I rarely see that work out).
ReplyDeleteWhat I meant to say the last time was simply that I was willing to accept either standard, but I thought that we should decide on one and apply it evenly regardless of whose ox was gored. I think Democrats, because of the importance of unions to their base, really ought to prefer the 'you can't be fired for political speech your employer disagrees with' standard. Republicans would most obviously be on the side of letting your employer fire you for any reason at all -- 'at will employment' is often defended as a species of free association by Republicans.
Those are both principled positions. What isn't principled is to assert that the NFL players should enjoy political protections, while ordinary people should be run out of their job every time someone crosses a PC line, on Twitter or otherwise.
I think you would be mistaken. My experience (such as it is) of Corporate America demonstrates the Peter principle too many times for comfort.
ReplyDelete