Hacker News Reader

Comment by kstrauser | Hacker News Reader

Yes, absolutely, some of those views should cost you your job. I don't want to work with people who want to eradicate Jews, or think black people are subhuman, or believe women are beneath men. If I found out someone on my team held those beliefs, I would definitely act to remove them. That's just not compatible with the type of environment I try to create at work.

I haven't seen a single example of someone who was fired because it turned out that they were a fan of trickle-down economics or opposed Obamacare. Those aren't the kind of opinions people are being "oppressed" (insert eyeroll here) for.

View on HN

Should these people go broke and starve to death? Or is there a class of job they should be allowed to work?

In the US at least, there is a welfare system in place that you cannot be "canceled" from if you have the need.

I'd be surprised to learn there are instances of people being canceled and starving to death.

As for going broke... The US system has never and continues to not guarantee people employment. Guaranteed employment is a property of another socioeconomic system that starts with a 'c', but it's not capitalism.

I hear Gab's probably going to be hiring soon.

But really, if they get fired from one job because of their awful opinions, they can try to find an employer who shares them. I guarantee there's someone out there who will hire people who believe the kinds of things I mentioned above. Maybe their new job will be worse, or have lower pay or benefits, but that's the consequence of sharing those opinions in public.

And let me be very explicit: I can happily work with people of all sorts of political persuasions. I couldn't care less if someone's a Republican, Democrat, or neither. If they're a decent person who treats the people around them with respect, then welcome aboard! Again, I've never heard of anyone losing their job just because they thought William F. Buckley had some interesting ideas.

So it's not about cancelling, it's about who you want to work with. Fair enough.

There's a gap between genocide and tax cuts. What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity? Or even having strict cultural (I won't even go to racial) standards for immigration.

EDIT: Removed a claim that maybe I can't back up.

The answers for that are going to be different for everyone. For me, personally: if you can come to work and be nice to Joe and his husband Steve, and don't talk about their air-quotes "marriage", and you're not a raging asshole about it online, fine. If you're not sure about trans identity but still call your coworker Jane by name as Jane, and refer to her as a woman, and aren't a raging asshole about it online, then fair enough. And by the online behavior part, I mean I'm personally not going to hate you for discussing the topics civilly and in good faith. If you're nice to Joe at work but on Facebook talk about "the gross gay guy at work", and it got back to me, I'd definitely have issues with it.

Some people will have a much lower tolerance for such opinions, just like I know for a fact there are people in the midwest who wouldn't hire me because I'm an "out of touch coastal liberal" or such. Like, I could name names. Similarly, there are people who wouldn't think a thing of it.

Also, I truly don't believe there's such a thing as "cancelling". In every case I've seen of it, the root cause was someone who had been making an ass of themself and the people around them had enough.

I think kstrauser's comment makes the proper distinction between what someone does and what they think.

Cancelling is a vague term I agree. I meant it here in the sense of going out of your way to discourage anybody from hiring the person in question, which is different from having your own hiring preferences.

Do you think JK Rowling was not a real example? Or that she deserved it?

Oh, Rowling was "cancelled," you say? What does that mean? Did she lose her publisher? No: her last book came out in September 2020. Her movie contracts? Nope, still has those, too. Can she still find places to publish whatever she wants? Yes. Can you still read the essay that she was supposedly "cancelled" over? Absolutely -- it was nominated for a prestigious award. Is she still a literal billionaire? Why, yes, from all appearances, she is.

Or is what you mean by "cancelled" is that a lot of people said mean things about her on Twitter? Yes, I suppose they did at that. Perhaps she can console herself by rolling around in her giant bin of money.

> Or is what you mean by "cancelled" is that a lot of people said mean things about her on Twitter?

Generally, yes that is what I and much of society means. An organized bullying campaign that tries to destroy someone to enforce their version of politically correct behavior.

And the fact remains that the behavior she was attacked over, whether or not you want to regard her as a human capable of being victimized or suffering nagatively from such things, was not related to any neo-nazi or otherwise objectively "evil" behavior we can wave away as deserving. Or was it? That was actually my question.

JK Rowling's billions of dollars taken away? Were her books removed from sale? Was she fired from writing the screenplay for the upcoming 11th major Hollywood movie featuring her work?

She lost a lot of fans and faced a lot of criticism due to her extremist views. That's a consequence of saying things most people don't like.

So she's an extremist? If she wasn't cancelled does she deserve to be? Seems like you're trying to have it both ways here.

We were talking about what it takes to get someone cancelled. I'd say the uproar that ensued qualifies. And what's with all the snark and cross-examination I'm getting in return for even asking the question? Why are you guys emotionally invested in this argument about JK Rowling?

If "being canceled" means that people say mean things about you but you face no material consequences, maybe it isn't the awful thing it's made out to be.

More snark? Presumably people are referring to the active attempt to make someone suffer consequences as canceling too. for example the electrician who got fired would still be described as a victim even if he later got his job back. Though boycotts do have material consequences depending how many people participate. I understand the number of people was greater than zero in this case.

Who are "you guys"?

What evidence do you have that "we are emotionally invested"?

What is "the uproar", some posts on Twitter?

All of the above is weasel words to try to get around the fact that "cancel culture" really just translates to "people facing the consequence of saying unpopular things".

Rowling, who, again, was not "cancelled", faced criticism for her TERF views. TERFs are considered extremists, one that will get you kicked off of platforms for hate speech. This is because at its core they *very unpopular* in all kinds of polls.

Having unpopular views will get you backlash. That is on you.

"You guys" means you plus the other poster who responded to me.

Cross-examination such as this is precisely my evidence regarding being emotionally invested. And despite the fact that you agree with my point ultimately. I have no idea why you care so much to disagree with all the people (certainly you know it isn't just me) that think Rowling was "cancelled", but clearly you care.

The thread is about the dangers to ordinary people in being doxxed by hackers, and none of these angles you come at me with are making the case against it. Of course you're not here for "curious conversation" about that, are you?

> What about not believing in gay marriage and trans identity?

The problem is usually with what backs that opinion up, e.g.: not believing in gay marriage because at its core they don't find the relationship legitimate in the first place. Even discussions on immigration don't have to be bad at their core, it's the "why" that's usually the problem.

Trans identity is a different matter because it's essentially: "what difference does it make to (figurative) you?". (i.e.: one's identity shouldn't matter to someone else)

Who's doing the "allowing" in your question? No one has that kind of power except for the state, and suggesting that the government should step in and make "asshole" a protected class seems silly.

We’re in America. No one is getting fired for being a libertarian or a socialist. Were not jailing flat earthers or people who marry sex dolls.

We’re taking about incitement to violence. That’s not something we tolerate as free speech.

Your standard sounds pretty reasonable. I think that there's a lack of trust that people really mean what you're saying. It's a motte and bailey thing. What about when people start saying that denying that transwomen are women equates to "denying the humanity of trans people"? Which puts trans people's lives at risk, they claim. That's practically incitement if you want it to be.

I mean heck, they tried the previous president for incitement of violence. As best I can tell he irresponsibly weaved a false reality for people which (I think inadvertently) lead to the storming, but by no legal standard is that incitement.

Maybe people in my corner are imagining things, but there's enough fuzzing of the lines that we're uneasy about it.

You could ask that hypothetical about any of a million different things that aren't a protected status.

Should you in theory have a hard time finding employment if you can't be what any employer anywhere wants you to be? Sure. That's on you. Protected statuses are rare, we should encroach as little as possible on the freedom of employers to employ who they want.

Should you starve to death? No, that's why we maintain a social safety net.

So your argument is that we need to be super concerned about the employability of abject evil?

"Sure, he's a serial killer, but jeez man, everyone's got to eat" is a hell of a take.

I do think the moderate conservatives to have a little bit of work to do as far as political theory goes in this area, specifically the synthesis of the positions "companies should not be allowed to fire employees for far-right beliefs" and "companies should be able to hire and fire employees for nearly any reason* and at any time."

*save for a Civil Rights Act violation, which is usually recognized as a harm across the board

What about someone who thinks males and females are biologically different? Or that surgery can't change that fact? The line keeps moving. I see people even on this forum attacking others in the worst language for opinions that look mainstream and benign to me.

I don't care either way, but, my question is, why not just legislate this? If you really want to see this as a permanent thing, it should be in the law..

Legislate what, exactly?

If you express opinion 'x' you should lose your job and not not get another job anywhere else.

I'm not going to tell a company they can't employee bletcherous cretins, let alone make it illegal. I strongly support the right of people who don't want to employee them to not to have to.

As someone else here said, "asshole" is not a protected class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com