If the right were getting people fired for perfectly ordinary left-wing opinions supported by a majority of people, that might count as cancel culture. Like "I support single-payer health care" or "ban assault weapons [sic]".
Getting people fired for advocating the assassination of a president, whether it is right or wrong, is not 'cancel culture'. Who here would be surprised or outraged if a company fired someone for publicly advocating the killing of Joe Biden?
Nah, cancel culture was and should always mean "getting fired for legal behaviour outside of work". Unless you are committing criminal or damaging acts, you shouldn't have to worry about losing your livelihood. Even then, as they often do, criminals should be able to earn a living after time served.
Wrong. If your kids school teacher was advocating for lowering the age of consent to 8 outside of work, would you still send your kid there? Would any parent?
That's not cancel culture; that's consequences. Part of your duty- maybe even explicitly stated in the hiring contract- in being a teacher is to not be a danger to children. Being a pedo naturally falls into that category and is why background checks are required when working with children.
Regardless, if you called for assassination 100 years ago, I'm pretty sure you would be fired. That definition of cancel culture is so broad that it would cover every period, and that will not help distinguish the madness of the past 10 years or so.
But granting that this is cancel culture, these instances should still be sharply distinguished from what the radical left has engaged in, because they will use this to claim that 'we' are just as bad as they are.
100 years ago you would have been dragged out of your work place and beaten to death by a violent mob.
We're much more calm about our political disagreements than we used to be. The 90's was just a decade where the Left were still recovering from the absolute ass-blasting they got in the 80's as a result of the Days Of Rage campaign of the 70's, and the perpetual violence of the 1960's. Twenty years of constant Leftist violence and agitation ended with them pretending to be interested in lowering crime that they caused with the Warren court.
Simple; this isn't cancel culture, this is consequences for terrible behaviour. Labelling something cancel culture should be reserved for punishment over inconsequential transgressions.
AKSHULLY, it is not legal to promote violence against political opponents. It's not protected speech.
So yeah, we're getting people fired for ILLEGAL behavior outside of work lol. We're actually more in the right because we have the law backing us. Fighting words and direct calls for violence is not constitutionally protected speech. That's why some of these "but muh principles" fags don't get - 1) we're holding them to their standards and 2) our standards are actually pretty fucking low because we're simply telling them NOT to commit crimes or say speech that is not constitutionally protected.
If the right were getting people fired for perfectly ordinary left-wing opinions supported by a majority of people, that might count as cancel culture. Like "I support single-payer health care" or "ban assault weapons [sic]".
Getting people fired for advocating the assassination of a president, whether it is right or wrong, is not 'cancel culture'. Who here would be surprised or outraged if a company fired someone for publicly advocating the killing of Joe Biden?
Nah, cancel culture was and should always mean "getting fired for legal behaviour outside of work". Unless you are committing criminal or damaging acts, you shouldn't have to worry about losing your livelihood. Even then, as they often do, criminals should be able to earn a living after time served.
Wrong. If your kids school teacher was advocating for lowering the age of consent to 8 outside of work, would you still send your kid there? Would any parent?
That's not cancel culture; that's consequences. Part of your duty- maybe even explicitly stated in the hiring contract- in being a teacher is to not be a danger to children. Being a pedo naturally falls into that category and is why background checks are required when working with children.
Admirable principles.
Regardless, if you called for assassination 100 years ago, I'm pretty sure you would be fired. That definition of cancel culture is so broad that it would cover every period, and that will not help distinguish the madness of the past 10 years or so.
But granting that this is cancel culture, these instances should still be sharply distinguished from what the radical left has engaged in, because they will use this to claim that 'we' are just as bad as they are.
100 years ago you would have been dragged out of your work place and beaten to death by a violent mob.
We're much more calm about our political disagreements than we used to be. The 90's was just a decade where the Left were still recovering from the absolute ass-blasting they got in the 80's as a result of the Days Of Rage campaign of the 70's, and the perpetual violence of the 1960's. Twenty years of constant Leftist violence and agitation ended with them pretending to be interested in lowering crime that they caused with the Warren court.
Simple; this isn't cancel culture, this is consequences for terrible behaviour. Labelling something cancel culture should be reserved for punishment over inconsequential transgressions.
This is correct, they will try to co-opt language as they always do, don't let them try and pretend they're victims of cancel culture.
AKSHULLY, it is not legal to promote violence against political opponents. It's not protected speech.
So yeah, we're getting people fired for ILLEGAL behavior outside of work lol. We're actually more in the right because we have the law backing us. Fighting words and direct calls for violence is not constitutionally protected speech. That's why some of these "but muh principles" fags don't get - 1) we're holding them to their standards and 2) our standards are actually pretty fucking low because we're simply telling them NOT to commit crimes or say speech that is not constitutionally protected.
Not all these statements are unlawful.
Exactly. We aren't engaging in cancel culture. They are facing consequences for violent speech.
Protecting the public (teachers, psychologists who do this shit) is not retribution.