This is an interesting perspective, but evasive. You don’t like making the perpetrators forever damned and you don’t like the Doxx truck, but you have no suggestion what to do with them. The doxx truck actually seems like a pretty good solution to me. It has the great advantage of making the perpetrators immediately aware of consequences for actions, a lesson these entitled brats seem to have missed. Shine light on truth. Let the chips fall where they may. Lesson learned.
Unlike you, Amanda, these students are not innocent.
Nick Christakis defines canceling as 1) forming a mob, to 2) seek to get someone fired (or disproportionately punished), for 3) statements within Overton window.
I am against canceling, even for the people you mention (although it's worth mentioning that I can't imagine what punishment would be disproportionate to trying to keep a child from being released from captivity and if supporting rape, murder and the torture of children is within the Overton window then we have a very, very big problem).
So I wouldn't form a mob and I wouldn't try to get others to turn on these people. Still, I wouldn't want to hire one and I assume I'm not alone in that. At the very least I'd expect them to create a work environment that's hostile to normal people -- not to mention Jews. Therefore, publicizing their already public activities and identities doesn't seem an overreaction.
It's worth noting, too, that I have yet to see someone in a poster-tearing-down video who expressed the slightest hint of discomfort with what they were doing, so I'll wait for some *actual* contrition before deciding to change my opinion of them.
I am concerned about a college culture with very few Jewish students (and full-time faculty) who are being taught radical post-colonial-influenced ideology in many of their classes. In my view, the institution has become quite anti-semitic, which makes it difficult to have informed conversations. The state recently established an erg for Jewish employees, but I don't know how much of a difference that might make. Noone in a position of authority sees themselves as being anti-Jewish. A recent video posted by Tomer Persico on Instagram resonated a great deal for me.
On some of my more exasperated days, I've had the thought that for a progressive it would be worse to be called a racist than an axe murderer. The point being that while innocent people are at times convicted, and guilty people sometimes go free, there is still a process of fact finding and adjudication in a court of law that is fundamentally different from an allegation that is often taken at face value even if based on questionable or no evidence, and is then pursued with self-righteous zeal. Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were first convicted of murder, absolved on appeal, re-convicted upon appeal by the prosecution, and finally exonerated, as she points out, in 2015 by Italy's highest court. She was indeed vilified, especially in the Italian and British press (the victim was British). That people continue to hound her is wrong; I'm not sure that I'd condone hounding even of a person who was rightfully convicted. The punishment under law is incarceration, not harassment or cancellation. This piece tends to blur boundaries around accusation and adjudication, between real violence and perceived harm, between tearing a poster down and stabbing someone. Like Monica Lewinski, Knox seems to be parlaying notoriety into expertise, but has little more than a personal story to tell. I'm looking for more from Persuasion.
For the terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters, mere cancellation is not sufficient. Their beliefs are incompatible with living in modern civilization and with being an American. They should not only be unemployed and friendless, they should be deported. Douglas Murray is correct, they cannot be permitted to be here, to even walk among us. Send them to the hellholes they support, where their monstrous morality is shared by the subhuman population. Unperson them, make them untouchable, and let them starve if they can't carry on without the support of the first world they so despise.
These people are not like you. They're barely people at all. Anything that expels them from our midst is ethical.
The answer is definitely more speech when people say things that assault our sensibilities. Unfortunately, debate and discussion skills are practically non-existent it seems, and few can maintain their composure while having a discussion with someone they disagree with. I'm often faced with someone starting a debate / discussion with me who knows very little about their own argument let alone my argument, but dammit they have a position. When I point out the weakness in their argument and provide some clarifying information, they reject it, rather than consider it. Even if we wind up quickly needing to ask Siri about a fact, they still reject the fact itself and stick with their weak argument. These minds are not as open as one would hope and many of them are in college now or have been to college recently, so I wind up just chalking it up to the lack of intellectual diversity on campus and the lack of experience people have in verbal discussion let alone debate.
This is an interesting perspective, but evasive. You don’t like making the perpetrators forever damned and you don’t like the Doxx truck, but you have no suggestion what to do with them. The doxx truck actually seems like a pretty good solution to me. It has the great advantage of making the perpetrators immediately aware of consequences for actions, a lesson these entitled brats seem to have missed. Shine light on truth. Let the chips fall where they may. Lesson learned.
Unlike you, Amanda, these students are not innocent.
To me, where the line is drawn is when cancellers deliberately go after their victim’s ability to make a living by going after their job situation.
Nick Christakis defines canceling as 1) forming a mob, to 2) seek to get someone fired (or disproportionately punished), for 3) statements within Overton window.
I am against canceling, even for the people you mention (although it's worth mentioning that I can't imagine what punishment would be disproportionate to trying to keep a child from being released from captivity and if supporting rape, murder and the torture of children is within the Overton window then we have a very, very big problem).
So I wouldn't form a mob and I wouldn't try to get others to turn on these people. Still, I wouldn't want to hire one and I assume I'm not alone in that. At the very least I'd expect them to create a work environment that's hostile to normal people -- not to mention Jews. Therefore, publicizing their already public activities and identities doesn't seem an overreaction.
It's worth noting, too, that I have yet to see someone in a poster-tearing-down video who expressed the slightest hint of discomfort with what they were doing, so I'll wait for some *actual* contrition before deciding to change my opinion of them.
I am concerned about a college culture with very few Jewish students (and full-time faculty) who are being taught radical post-colonial-influenced ideology in many of their classes. In my view, the institution has become quite anti-semitic, which makes it difficult to have informed conversations. The state recently established an erg for Jewish employees, but I don't know how much of a difference that might make. Noone in a position of authority sees themselves as being anti-Jewish. A recent video posted by Tomer Persico on Instagram resonated a great deal for me.
On some of my more exasperated days, I've had the thought that for a progressive it would be worse to be called a racist than an axe murderer. The point being that while innocent people are at times convicted, and guilty people sometimes go free, there is still a process of fact finding and adjudication in a court of law that is fundamentally different from an allegation that is often taken at face value even if based on questionable or no evidence, and is then pursued with self-righteous zeal. Amanda Knox and her boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were first convicted of murder, absolved on appeal, re-convicted upon appeal by the prosecution, and finally exonerated, as she points out, in 2015 by Italy's highest court. She was indeed vilified, especially in the Italian and British press (the victim was British). That people continue to hound her is wrong; I'm not sure that I'd condone hounding even of a person who was rightfully convicted. The punishment under law is incarceration, not harassment or cancellation. This piece tends to blur boundaries around accusation and adjudication, between real violence and perceived harm, between tearing a poster down and stabbing someone. Like Monica Lewinski, Knox seems to be parlaying notoriety into expertise, but has little more than a personal story to tell. I'm looking for more from Persuasion.
For the terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters, mere cancellation is not sufficient. Their beliefs are incompatible with living in modern civilization and with being an American. They should not only be unemployed and friendless, they should be deported. Douglas Murray is correct, they cannot be permitted to be here, to even walk among us. Send them to the hellholes they support, where their monstrous morality is shared by the subhuman population. Unperson them, make them untouchable, and let them starve if they can't carry on without the support of the first world they so despise.
These people are not like you. They're barely people at all. Anything that expels them from our midst is ethical.
Foxy Knoxy in Persuasion? Be still my heart.
The answer is definitely more speech when people say things that assault our sensibilities. Unfortunately, debate and discussion skills are practically non-existent it seems, and few can maintain their composure while having a discussion with someone they disagree with. I'm often faced with someone starting a debate / discussion with me who knows very little about their own argument let alone my argument, but dammit they have a position. When I point out the weakness in their argument and provide some clarifying information, they reject it, rather than consider it. Even if we wind up quickly needing to ask Siri about a fact, they still reject the fact itself and stick with their weak argument. These minds are not as open as one would hope and many of them are in college now or have been to college recently, so I wind up just chalking it up to the lack of intellectual diversity on campus and the lack of experience people have in verbal discussion let alone debate.
Again, get an editor!