Cancelling Dr. Seuss

[Wahoo Redux]

"cancel culture" is the work of the free market (people applying pressure by voting with their wallets), the result of people using their right to free speech

The Seuss family estate deciding it no longer wants to publish books is a decision enshrined in their right to free speech. People who would force them to keep printing the books fall on the side of forced speech, which is not free speech.

Which are different from corporate entities telling us what we can say by threatening our livelihoods.

I touched on the issue with corporate entities in my post, I'm not sure why you edited that part out and then brought it up?

I was just focusing on voluntary restrictions (free speech commenting on free speech) and not on coerced restrictions (corporations forcing people to say or not say certain things off the clock).

I should have made that clear.

[eigen]

"cancel culture" is the work of the free market (people applying pressure by voting with their wallets), the result of people using their right to free speech

The Seuss family estate deciding it no longer wants to publish books is a decision enshrined in their right to free speech. People who would force them to keep printing the books fall on the side of forced speech, which is not free speech.

Which are different from corporate entities telling us what we can say by threatening our livelihoods.

I touched on the issue with corporate entities in my post, I'm not sure why you edited that part out and then brought it up?

I was just focusing on voluntary restrictions (free speech commenting on free speech) and not on coerced restrictions (corporations forcing people to say or not say certain things off the clock).

I should have made that clear.

Ah, makes more sense now. Thanks for clarifying.

[Caracal]

Do you really want the state to dictate what you and I can or cannot say?  It's only possible to think this if you don't imagine yourself as being the potential target of a censorious government or culture.

I understand and I acknowledge your reasoning, Caracal, but you clearly believe you know what people should be allowed to say and why.  Very, very dangerous.

Their rights to be @zz holes guarantees our rights to be @zz holes.  Don't think it is a sword with only one sharp side.  From Parasaurolophus' link:

If I ruled the world, I'd prefer some version of this where people only get fired if their speech is going to either interfere with their future ability to do their job or suggests that they are unqualified for the job.

Suppose someone works for the Anti Defamation League and that person posts racist rants on facebook. They are almost certainly going to get fired, and for good reason. It isn't just that the ADL wouldn't want the bad publicity-being a bigot makes you unqualified to work at a group dedicated to exposing and combatting bigotry. The same thing is true for police officers. People who feel comfortable posting racist things on facebook are probably going to feel comfortable discriminating against people when are in uniform too.

[marshwiggle]

Do you really want the state to dictate what you and I can or cannot say?  It's only possible to think this if you don't imagine yourself as being the potential target of a censorious government or culture.

I understand and I acknowledge your reasoning, Caracal, but you clearly believe you know what people should be allowed to say and why.  Very, very dangerous.

Their rights to be @zz holes guarantees our rights to be @zz holes.  Don't think it is a sword with only one sharp side.  From Parasaurolophus' link:

If I ruled the world, I'd prefer some version of this where people only get fired if their speech is going to either interfere with their future ability to do their job or suggests that they are unqualified for the job.

Suppose someone works for the Anti Defamation League and that person posts racist rants on facebook. They are almost certainly going to get fired, and for good reason. It isn't just that the ADL wouldn't want the bad publicity-being a bigot makes you unqualified to work at a group dedicated to exposing and combatting bigotry. The same thing is true for police officers. People who feel comfortable posting racist things on facebook are probably going to feel comfortable discriminating against people when are in uniform too.

This logic could be used against any person whose job involves interacting with people, which basically means any job.

[mahagonny]

Do you really want the state to dictate what you and I can or cannot say?  It's only possible to think this if you don't imagine yourself as being the potential target of a censorious government or culture.

I understand and I acknowledge your reasoning, Caracal, but you clearly believe you know what people should be allowed to say and why.  Very, very dangerous.

Their rights to be @zz holes guarantees our rights to be @zz holes.  Don't think it is a sword with only one sharp side.  From Parasaurolophus' link:

If I ruled the world, I'd prefer some version of this where people only get fired if their speech is going to either interfere with their future ability to do their job or suggests that they are unqualified for the job.

Suppose someone works for the Anti Defamation League and that person posts racist rants on facebook. They are almost certainly going to get fired, and for good reason. It isn't just that the ADL wouldn't want the bad publicity-being a bigot makes you unqualified to work at a group dedicated to exposing and combatting bigotry. The same thing is true for police officers. People who feel comfortable posting racist things on facebook are probably going to feel comfortable discriminating against people when are in uniform too.

This logic could be used against any person whose job involves interacting with people, which basically means any job.

Well, not to mention, people who feel comfortable deciding for everyone what as a racist thing to say or write, or what is not are people to beware of.

[Anselm]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A1mqg4C0awA

Jesse Jackson reading Green Eggs and Ham.

[Wahoo Redux]

Do you really want the state to dictate what you and I can or cannot say?  It's only possible to think this if you don't imagine yourself as being the potential target of a censorious government or culture.

I understand and I acknowledge your reasoning, Caracal, but you clearly believe you know what people should be allowed to say and why.  Very, very dangerous.

Their rights to be @zz holes guarantees our rights to be @zz holes.  Don't think it is a sword with only one sharp side.  From Parasaurolophus' link:

If I ruled the world, I'd prefer some version of this where people only get fired if their speech is going to either interfere with their future ability to do their job or suggests that they are unqualified for the job.

Suppose someone works for the Anti Defamation League and that person posts racist rants on facebook. They are almost certainly going to get fired, and for good reason. It isn't just that the ADL wouldn't want the bad publicity-being a bigot makes you unqualified to work at a group dedicated to exposing and combatting bigotry. The same thing is true for police officers. People who feel comfortable posting racist things on facebook are probably going to feel comfortable discriminating against people when are in uniform too.

I think we are at loggerheads.  I understand your point, I really do.  You've provided a number of similar hypotheticals that illustrate how a person's beliefs might affect their ability to do their jobs when their jobs involve public perception.  They make a very good point I, and I suspect everyone else, understands.

Fair enough, you have a good point. 

There are some issues with this, some of which I have argued, namely:

1) Allowing corporations to determine what we say off-the-clock seems like one of the most pernicious things we could do.

But there are these other issues:

2) We are not talking about being kicked out of a book club; we are talking about people's livelihoods.  Should you lose a career for saying the wrong thing, no matter how terrible?  I'll point this out again: if certain very conservative people had their way, you would now be out of a job because of the beliefs you expressed on this board.  Are you sure you want to release that particular Kraken? 

3) We already have laws that protect us from people who act on their egregious beliefs. 

4) We already have axiomatic protection from people who break their employers' protocols. 

5) If we stopped at thought-policing police officers...okay...maybe.  But that small catalog of stories included all sorts of people in all sorts of careers and scenarios.  Only a few of those included law enforcement.  Several included professors. 

6) Are we the "snowflakes" that the Trumpers allege?  The world is going to be full of these people...

7) ...and do we just expect these ideas to disappear after we boot them from their jobs?  What does policing off-the-clock opinions actually accomplish?  Do we solve anything by evicting the 'bad people' from the public sphere?

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

9) Are the Seuss and Mary Poppins controversies a symptom of hysterical thinking?

[marshwiggle]

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

My sense is that Caracal doesn't ever see himself holding views which would be that dangerous to express.

[dismalist]

 

Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

Yes, of course. One wit noted that in the former Soviet Union one could say whatever one liked. Just not to whomever one liked.

[mahagonny]

The Seuss family estate deciding it no longer wants to publish books is a decision enshrined in their right to free speech. People who would force them to keep printing the books fall on the side of forced speech, which is not free speech.

The 'anti-racism' crowd are doing forced speech now, too, have been for some time already, but someone's finally challenging them with litigation.

https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/arts-letters/articles/wendy-kaminer-race-bias-training

(italics are mine)

'"William charged his school with requiring him to confess the indices of his presumed privilege—to "proclaim in class and in assignments his race, color, sex, gender and religious identities for which he in turn would receive official, derogatory labels."'

[mahagonny]

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

My sense is that Caracal doesn't ever see himself holding views which would be that dangerous to express.

If I recall correctly Caracal has a spouse with tenure, so would most likely be safe from retribution. And the obvious, his views are lock-step with the far left majority in academia, so would likely only attract attention positively.
It's kind of hard to take people taking up arguments of principle when those principles one purports to have are only remotely likely to ever see any test. And meanwhile, others in their midst are paying big penalties.

I just wanted to toss in here that I think it's amazingly ironic that the same people I grew up with who hosted book burnings of the Harry Potter books and boycotted the local library to have them banned when I was growing up are now the people decrying "cancel culture" attacking J.K. Rowling.

This is the point; the two sides have switched places. Now the people who derided the people burning Harry Potter books want to prevent people buying them, seeing the movies, etc.

The point isn't that this is worse, just that the hypocrisy is on both sides of the political spectrum. And this is why freedom speech as a principle is important, because a given person will quite likely find themselves on different sides of the issue during their lifetime.

The thought process though is if one has tenure one is only on the winning side, always.

It is really tiring that you beat this horse in every. single. thread. no matter whether it's related to the topic or not.

It's related, and I'm not really worried about what you're tired of.

[Ruralguy]

Maybe this isn't worth it, but could you concisely explain how it is related?

[mahagonny]

Maybe this isn't worth it, but could you concisely explain how it is related?

It's not worth it. But you could ruminate on anything else I have posted, in case you're tired of the tenure comment.

[Ruralguy]

Fair enough...

[Caracal]

8) Are you and I and all the other forumites allowed to have a private life in which we can develop our own beliefs without fear of losing everything we have worked for because we express ourselves?

My sense is that Caracal doesn't ever see himself holding views which would be that dangerous to express.

If I recall correctly Caracal has a spouse with tenure, so would most likely be safe from retribution. And the obvious, his views are lock-step with the far left majority in academia, so would likely only attract attention positively.
It's kind of hard to take people taking up arguments of principle when those principles one purports to have are only remotely likely to ever see any test. And meanwhile, others in their midst are paying big penalties.

You really are oddly like Poly sometimes...

I don't work at the same institution as my spouse, for what that's worth. I don't have any protection from anything I've mentioned minor details about my life in these threads before, as others do. I don't think that makes it appropriate to bring those up and attribute my views to my supposed privileged status. (I'm the spouse of a college professor, not a billionaire, so its a little confusing)

Your inability to actually engage with the substance of the argument is rather telling. But I think I'm done engaging with you on this.