RebKell's Junkie Boards

[FrozenLVFan]

This question arose from my increasing discomfort this week at seeing the backlash at people for voicing their opinion about social and political issues.

The first is found in the Loeffler thread, which I won't reiterate here, but tldr version is WNBA owner voices opinion about racial issues and faces outcry to resign.

The second is the backlash again Goya Foods CEO Robert Unanue who attended the President's signing of the Executive Order on the White House Hispanic Prosperity Initiative in the Rose Garden. "We are all truly blessed ... to have a leader like President Trump who is a builder," Unanue said during the Rose Garden speech. "We have an incredible builder, and we pray. We pray for our leadership, our president." This prompted an outcry to boycott Goya, led by OCO and former HUD Secretary Julian Castro.
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/10/business/goya-foods-boycott-trump/index.html

And the third was this high school senior, who was threatened with being unadmitted from Marquette before she's even taken a class, after an outcry about her support for Trump on TikTok. In addition, she was attacked on social media, being called words I can't use here and received multiple death threats, and had some of her posting privileges revoked by Twitter. Eventually Marquette told her she was still enrolled.
https://www.thecollegefix.com/marquette-university-threatened-to-rescind-students-admission-over-pro-trump-tiktok-video/?fbclid=IwAR0NLS_ZSwq91nqZvj0RFl1m_hqTFoLIRaRNTPi5T8iVhhbjBFDZEuc_3KM
I believe the video that started the uproar is the one with the Trump sign in the window. https://www.tiktok.com/@conservativegirl0?source=h5_m

Where do we draw the line between free speech and deciding someone's opinion is worthy of terminating their job, threatening their employer with economic harm, curtailing their education, or issuing death threats?

This is all very disturbing to me. The last time I checked, we still had a First Amendment. Don't we? Maybe we don't if we're not actually allowed to exercise it without fear of significant retaliation. If I say "Trump is an idiot," should I expect to be threatened just like others are being threatened for saying "Trump is a great guy."

Obviously there are other issues at play here besides just free speech, but I truly fear for our country when a young woman can't attend college with the expectation of participating in free discussions. In one of her non-dancing videos, she says the suppression of free speech leads to a more binary society, and I agree with that.

[Youth Coach]

It's the endgame of the phrase, "Freedom of speech...just watch what you say".

If you have an opinion that deviates even the least little bit from the majority these days, you are pilloried for not lock stepping in line with everyone else.

This is why I refuse to get involved in anything anymore. Because no matter how much I may or may not agree with something, I've seen people become raging asshats if you aren't 100% in agreement with ONLY what they say.

So I'm done.

_________________
The Cassette Chronicles #242 - Europe - The Final Countdown

CD Review - Judas Priest - Invincible Shield


Concert Review - Ronny Munroe's Holy Dio

[pilight]

The first amendment only protects people from government action.

The brigading of anyone with the temerity to say something the mob disagrees with is not surprising, given the love of censorship on both ends of the political spectrum, but is disquieting.

_________________
I'm a lonely frog
I ain't got a home

[Howee]

[Oopz....I'm editing this out, as it seems it was submitted unintentionally by myself before completed. I'll be back! ]

_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"

[mercfan3]

Why is “I don’t believe in equality” an opinion someone can have.

Speech comes with consequences. In both of these cases, the individuals bit the hand that feeds them.

_________________
“Anyone point out that a Donald Trump anagram is ‘Lord Dampnut’”- Colin Mochrie

[pilight]

[Howee]

Okay. The OP starts with the title, "When did it become wrong to voice your opinion?"

While I understand the points you make, I'm inclined to approach this from a slightly variant perspective: "When did it become okay for dispensing Nasty Consequences for voicing your opinion?"

The cases you named are different from each other in 'deserving' what came at them, imo.

Loeffler? I have no idea what transpired, and don't care enough to explore, so....no comment.

The school girl? That treatment is just wrong, certainly if Marquette had been negatively involved. But her generation is just emulating what they have been seeing for a while now. Sad.

The Goya CEO? To me, the boycott makes perfect sense. He's literally responsible for an ethnic line of food products, has made his fortune from serving a (probably?) majority Hispanic demographic, AND he lauds 45 for what specific things? I don't hear anyone saying he can't voice his opinion. But WHEN he goes public with it, AND his opinion flies in the face of those who had enriched him with their patronage, then I totally get those same people boycotting him: he doesn't represent genuine caring or understanding of 45's treatment of Hispanics. Tell me why he should NOT expect repercussions?

In a similar vein, I don't get this one: Tucker Carlson's head writer "resigns" (undoubtedly with the understanding he was gonna get canned) cuz he was discovered to have an account with AutoAdmit where he posted lots of racist stuff for years, under a pseudonym. Despicable? I'd say so. It was his private *thing*, though, not a public assertion, right? Did he deserve to lose his job?

_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"

[mercfan3]

[pilight]

[FrozenLVFan]

[Howee]

[jammerbirdi]

[FrozenLVFan]

[calbearman76]

To get back to the original question, voicing opinions has always come with a degree of risk. Say something people don't like and it is appropriate for people to react. That can be done in various ways, including boycotts, shaming or firing. All are reasonable actions unless:

1) they are contrary to to contractual relationships (generally people can get fired, but not if their terms of employment do not allow for discipline for actions outside of the work setting)

2) if the actions amount to illegal collusion by companies that are otherwise competitors

3) if they are done by federal or state governments.

Of course those reactions are also subject to retaliation, so tread carefully.

And with regard to Goya, if you tie yourself to the president and Ivanka Trump gives you a tacit endorsement is it really a win?

[Howee]

[jammerbirdi]

First, thank you, Frozen for starting this thread. This subject has certainly come to the fore these last few weeks like never before. Something about the protests has given a steroid shot to the idea and subsequently the power and range of cancel culture in this moment and that has caused a pushback from those who think that free speech without fear of facing personal and political destruction is an important thing to protect.

So there was The Letter. And as I spend a LOT of my time lately just playing the guitar, I can't be relied upon perfectly here for every factual detail but it sort of went like this. (And by the end of watching these videos etc. you'll know where to find the actual letter if you need to see it yourself.)

I think over 100 journalists, activists, politicians, academics, signed onto this letter published in Harpers. Stating the threat they felt that cancel culture, labeling people as horrible things, de-platforming people, firing people, etc. all that juicy shit, poses to free speech.

Some of those who signed the letter were JK Rowling, Noam Chomsky, the great Caitlin Flanagan, Bari Weiss, and Andrew Sullivan.

Well. lol. The pushback was significant. Again, don't hold me to the details here, I'm going by memory and I try my best to powerwash my memory banks all day long every day by playing 'Giant Steps' on the guitar. It's my pandemic Nam Myōhō Renge Kyō.

Anyway. First someone had to issue a SINCERE apology because they hadn't personally vetted everyone who would be signing onto the letter. So they ended up as co-signers with some already undesirable elements.

And then, predictably, heads began to roll. Andrew Sullivan was let go from New York Magazine and then, two days ago, Bari Weiss, the very young and often foolish opinion EDITOR (!!!) at the NEW YORK BLOODY TIMES resigned in a huff.

Good news? Chomsky's job is safe.

So let's work backwards here. Sometimes it's just better to do that. And so this first video is from today. It’s about how all of this reads at this moment with the hypocrisy just piling up by the hour. It's technically about the BDS movement and how people who are crying about free speech NOW did not rise up to defend BDS when and as it is under attack. But, for me, this is all about Krystal Ball's brilliance calling out the hypocrisy which really encompasses the greater issues around cancel culture writ large.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/6koTpR6Lw-Q" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

This second video is from yesterday and it is more an analysis of the Bari Weiss resignation that both calls into question her hypocrisy as well as defending her in this present context. I mean, Krystal Ball and Saagar Enjeti are nothing if not consistent AND unified in their recognition and honesty about cancel culture. I think their show is essential political viewing in this really strange and dangerous time.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Tho6dRQAMpE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

And this last video is really the presentation of the whole 'Letter' controversy in the first place. Again, if any of you are having these debates here and you're not exposing yourselves to this level of detail and, I would suggest, non-ideological and honest (even if totally wrong in your eyes) analysis and conversation around these topics by people like these two... it's hard to think that you're serious about at least having the case argued before you so that you can act as a proper judge for yourself.

Anyway. I think I predicted a long time ago here that these issues were coming for us all and that's because it was easy to see that they they were already rearing their head online and in our own community, many years, if not decades, ago.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/nN3B_q40RyY" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

_________________
Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17

[stever]

[Howee]

Good article, stever. Many interesting points.