Would you really say that a society where no one is ever held accountable for what they say is the alternative to what happened to Sacco?
Imagine if someone with a lot of twitter followers interpreted the statement you just made here as a veiled death threat, unleashing a raging mob against you, ultimately leading the utter destruction of your life as you knew it. Would you say that you were being held accountable for what you just said and that any society that did not do that to you had to be one where no one was being held accountable for anything they say?
Demanding that people should be held accountable for what they say is so generic that it allows for any kind of reaction to just about anything anyone could ever say. The islamists who killed the Charlie Hebdo caroonists could have said the exact same thing.
Proportionality is important.
Also, Sacco's case clearly shows that there are always lots of people out there who are waiting for an opportunity to bully others, regardless of how contrived and intellectually disingenuous the pretext may be. Portraying a joke about racism or race relations as a racist joke is just daft. I can't believe that many people honestly felt that Sacco was being racist. They just wanted to bully someone.
I kinda agree, a PR person of all people should be held accountable for making a terrible joke that comes off as racist.
The problem is just the reaction of a mob of arm chair vigilantes thinking they are each delivering some unique tiny bit of justice with their comments, emails or calls. It's a death by a thousand cuts, not to mention the nut-cases who send horrible threats of violence and worse.
It's obviously something ingrained in our DNA, it reminds me of nature documentaries - watching a group of apes attack one of their own who they perceive as weak.
[McMurphy:] "Is this the usual pro-cedure for these Group Ther'py shindigs? Bunch of chickens at a peckin' party?"
[…]
[Harding:]"A 'pecking party'? I fear your quaint down-home speech is wasted on me, my friend. I have not the slightest inclination what you're talking about."
"Why then, I'll just explain it to you." McMurphy raises his voice; though he doesn't look at the other Acutes listening behind him, it's them he's talking to. "The flock gets sight of a spot of blood on some chicken and they all go to peckin' at it, see, till they rip the chicken to shreds, blood and bones and feathers. But usually a couple of the flock gets spotted in the fracas, then it's their turn. And a few more gets spots and gets pecked to death, and more and more. Oh, a peckin' party can wipe out the whole flock in a matter of a few hours, buddy, I seen it. A mighty awesome sight. The only way to prevent it-with chickens-is to clip blinders on them. So's they can't see."
I'm not sure it goes back to the formation of our DNA. Or at least not in that way.
We're raised on stories of Abraham Lincoln and Rosa Parks and we idealize how important they were to society. Now as people leave childhood and begin facing their own complete lack of importance think they can join the social justice fight and simply by bullying people really be somebody. They'll spend hours a day in a rage at their keyboards while thinking what they're doing is really benefiting society.
Getting outraged politically is a quick and easy path to a social identity and group membership. That does make us sound a bit like apes....
The coorect response to what most of these people said is for someone to pull them to one side and say "stop being a dick, especially if you're using the company social media account".
Threats of violence, loss of job, weeks long campaigns -- none of that is an appropriate response.
Whether or not you agree with Eich getting fired (stepping down) over it is another thing, but donating to a cause whose sole purpose is to prevent a group's right to get married (and reap the tax benefits!) seems pretty hateful. You can get into semantics about what was or wasn't written in religious texts, whatever, still doesn't make it right.
What CamperBob2 said was probably inflammatory but probably also right. If you're against same-sex marriage you're probably on the wrong side of history.
Note to hopefully avoid unproductive tangents: all the views I use as examples here say nothing about how I feel about these issues, they're just examples of how _society_ feels and may feel about certain things (which is what is relevant).
> If you're against same-sex marriage you're probably on the wrong side of history.
The problem I have with this is that it condemns the vast majority of society, throughout the vast majority of history. Understanding someone's views while stripping the context of society's views at the time is foolish. In 2015, being religious (e.g.) isn't a good excuse for opposing gay marriage in 2008 (when a majority of society was in opposition to gay mariage, btw). Hypothetically, in 2025, maybe support for Israel's actions vis-a-vis Palestine will be widely considered the new apartheid. Similarly, what if in 10 years, we decide that a robust social welfare system in the US is a moral imperative (there are many who already feel that the way poverty is treated in this country is a huge moral failing)?
Does that mean all of my friends in 2015 who donate to and participate in organizations and rallies in support of Israel should be forever blacklisted from public positions? Should all the people you know who in 2015 are opposed to robust welfare/basic income and the accompanying tax increases be forbidden forever from rising to certain positions of authority in entirely-unrelated fields?
I don't necessarily really agree with your statement that a majority of society was opposed to gay marriage in 2008. But I think it is a valid point to say that what happened near 6-7 years ago should not necessarily count against you in the present.
_BUT_ (and I'm largely paraphrasing) when asked about this issue and same-sex marriage, Eich pretty much sidestepped the question and refused to answer it, citing how he has never discriminating against anyone. And to a lot of people that wasn't good enough of a response coming from a CEO of a company that prides itself on its diversity, especially when they also have gay employees.
Anyways my actual point about this originally was that Eich's situation doesn't really parallel the situation Sacco went through. For one, Eich's situation was pretty enclosed to the tech world, whereas Sacco was a worldwide trending topic that brought her a lot of unwanted attention. I also doubt Eich got called a whore, bitch, slut, etc much. And to say Eich was "bullied" in the way Sacco was bullied is laughable (Not saying you said it, although I think one of the ancestor posts mentioned it).
> I don't necessarily really agree with your statement that a majority of society was opposed to gay marriage in 2008.
I actually thought this was the least controversial part of my comment. This isn't just my anecdotal opinion, it's pretty well supported by polls if I'm not mistaken. Do you mind if I ask on what basis you think the opposite is true?
> when asked about this issue and same-sex marriage, Eich pretty much sidestepped the question and refused to answer it, citing how he has never discriminating against anyone. And to a lot of people that wasn't good enough of a response coming from a CEO of a company that prides itself on its diversity, especially when they also have gay employees.
This is a more compelling point actually. On the other hand, it's easy for me to imagine that he just (like me) failed to comprehend the level of lunacy he was facing and figured the best way to handle a manufactured controversy was to not give it more attention than necessary. On top of that, I feel like I'd also be much more morally inclined to emphasize that political views are irrelevant, rather than pander by saying "oh I've completely changed forever" and implicitly approving of the intolerance implied by political litmus tests (regardless of your location on the political spectrum).
> I also doubt Eich got called a whore, bitch, slut, etc much. And to say Eich was "bullied" in the way Sacco was bullied is laughable
As you said, it wasn't me who compared them. That being said, I don't think using the term "bullied" for either person is particularly unwarranted though.
Living in a democracy I'm uneasy when I see large-scale mobs form to punish and intimidate people for participating in our political process in "the wrong way." Take note that I've been a long-time supporter of same-sex marriage, but seeing Eich get forced out by the group I always supported because they were so innocent and powerless made me reconsider some things.
No, it doesn't make them "different," it makes them hateful. You're carrying water for some people that will go down in history next to the KKK. Stop it.
Not only that. If you take that approach to an extreme one e fs up a hermit or worse a selfreinfocing mentality. I mean no restaurants where a cook, server disagrees politically, no working for companies who have people who disagree with me, no listening to music from musicians who disagree with me....
Go ahead try and see how far people get. Not very.
I don't think so. So long as they don't seek me out personally, I'm okay with the CxO, etc., being diametrically opposed to me.
I'll put up with an F'ed up president/prime minister with whom I disagree to the utmost, but I'm not going to move out of the country. I'd do what any civilized person would do and avail myself the tools at hand, vote, in the case of president/PM/Chancellor. But I'm not going to get in a tizzy over it.
I think there's a point you come to in life where you realize that no matter how righteous you think your personal cause is, it's your framework which makes it so. Live in another era, in greek times or babylonian times, their idea of what was right and wrong were different due to their frameworks. People who believe that when they are old and frail should go out to pasture to be consumed by nature are no less right than the person who believes in life prolonging drugs, euthanasia or hospice care.
I'm also not saying we're insignificant beings and nothing really matters in the face of the universe. Just that with few exceptions, like murder, etc. we can't say 'this is the righteous way', the enlightened way.
When I work for someone, when I buy something, there is no further symbolism -it's unconditional. I make a transaction for service or product. You pay me, I work for you do do x. I pay you and I get service or product x in return. I don't expect any conditions like, oh, you must say sweet things to your partner, don't think nasty thoughts in your dreams, else this breaks some implicit agreement, etc.
I'm really sorry to have to be so direct about this, but it's perspectives like this that are part of the problem.
By saying that they're "next to the KKK", you're marking your opposition as not only immoral, but beyond reprieve. If you're willing to simplify the moral landscape to a single line onto which you've placed yourself squarely at the "good" end, you're taking a gravely irresponsible logical shortcut.
EDIT: I foolishly used 'retribution' in place of 'reprieve', thus making my above comment confusing and nonsensical.
By saying that they're "next to the KKK", you're marking your opposition as not only immoral, but beyond reprieve.
Can you elaborate on that? Several prominent racists of the KKK era, including people like Robert Byrd and George Wallace, ultimately renounced their earlier views. Eich is free to do the same whenever he wants. He has not, as far as I'm aware.
You see he has donated to a hateful cause. You then tell him that this action has triggered extra scrutiny of his actions at work. You the. Scrutinise everything he has done at work, and all interactions in the workplace. As soon as he discriminates againt gay people in the workplace you fire him.
But he has already discriminated against them by donating to a party that wants to take away their rights. How can he then claim to take diversity seriously?
I would certainly like the people who mobbed and bullied Justine Sacco to be held accountable for what they said, which unlike her innocent, easily-misunderstood comment was full of willful malice.
There's a spectrum of 'accountable' between being an unemployable pariah and being totally unaccountable which disorganized mass action cannot be properly calibrated for.
The "Mob" API has exactly one public method: start().
It doesn't return. You can't be sure if it worked.
And, most importantly, you don't have the ability to say "no, no, it started against the wrong person" or "okay, that's enough." It will run at its own speed, maybe finding a new target when the first one is destroyed.
