Netflix defended Dave Chappelle because it happened to serve its bottom line. But a real commitment to free speech can’t turn on commercial incentives.
Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn't *deserve* tenure. She hasn't earned it. She doesn't have a Ph.D. and her hack journalism and so-called "history" writing has been discredited by a number of reputable scholars. People like that don't get tenure, and if she did *that* would be the travesty. She'd be getting it because of her name recognition, not her ability to contribute to human knowledge.
I've been really hoping that other companies will see Netflix stand up to the storm, and refuse to give in; and came out okay. If corporate executives start to realize that this is just a toddler throwing a tantrum, and you must just ignore them until they get tired and stop screaming, then the woke movement will lose huge amounts of power. Perhaps Netflix's motivations weren't purely altruistic, but I still hold out hope that they could have such an effect anyway.
I think the real issue here is peoples' disgust with the demonization of others who don't agree 1OO% with a certain view point. You can't get much more liberal than NYMagazine but most comments on the Chapelle issue supported him for his comedic work or what he was trying to say about a 'hierarchy' of victimhood. He wasn't calling for depriving anyone of rights to live the way they want or need to. He wasn't trying to get anybody fired or ostracized. Rotten Tomatoes gave the show a 97% audience favorable vs. in the 4Os for critics. It's about standing up to an intolerance by marginalized groups or the 'woke' for independent thinking.
When it comes to defending free speech, the bottom line shouldn't be a determining factor. But neither should popularity. It's irrelevant whether a large audience loved or hated Chappelle's special. He 'd still deserve the free speech defense whether crowds lined up around the block or stayed away in droves. In fact, if he or his special were "widely UNpopular," and got a zero percent rating from regular viewers on Rotten Tomatoes, that would be all the more reason to defend him. There will always be secret racists, homophobes, and transphobes who'll be pleased when a national figure attacks downward to the groups they love to hate. They probably inflate the popularity figures and should be ignored in the process anyway, since their call for free speech is insincere. But the free speech principle stands regardless.
Great point. This is similar to the argument that we should care about diversity in corporations because a study from McKinsey shows that diverse leadership leads to greater profits. If the opposite were true, and whiter boards were more profitable, would we argue against diversity? Of course not. Therefore that whole line of reasoning is misplaced.
Nikole Hannah-Jones doesn't *deserve* tenure. She hasn't earned it. She doesn't have a Ph.D. and her hack journalism and so-called "history" writing has been discredited by a number of reputable scholars. People like that don't get tenure, and if she did *that* would be the travesty. She'd be getting it because of her name recognition, not her ability to contribute to human knowledge.
I've been really hoping that other companies will see Netflix stand up to the storm, and refuse to give in; and came out okay. If corporate executives start to realize that this is just a toddler throwing a tantrum, and you must just ignore them until they get tired and stop screaming, then the woke movement will lose huge amounts of power. Perhaps Netflix's motivations weren't purely altruistic, but I still hold out hope that they could have such an effect anyway.
I think the real issue here is peoples' disgust with the demonization of others who don't agree 1OO% with a certain view point. You can't get much more liberal than NYMagazine but most comments on the Chapelle issue supported him for his comedic work or what he was trying to say about a 'hierarchy' of victimhood. He wasn't calling for depriving anyone of rights to live the way they want or need to. He wasn't trying to get anybody fired or ostracized. Rotten Tomatoes gave the show a 97% audience favorable vs. in the 4Os for critics. It's about standing up to an intolerance by marginalized groups or the 'woke' for independent thinking.
When it comes to defending free speech, the bottom line shouldn't be a determining factor. But neither should popularity. It's irrelevant whether a large audience loved or hated Chappelle's special. He 'd still deserve the free speech defense whether crowds lined up around the block or stayed away in droves. In fact, if he or his special were "widely UNpopular," and got a zero percent rating from regular viewers on Rotten Tomatoes, that would be all the more reason to defend him. There will always be secret racists, homophobes, and transphobes who'll be pleased when a national figure attacks downward to the groups they love to hate. They probably inflate the popularity figures and should be ignored in the process anyway, since their call for free speech is insincere. But the free speech principle stands regardless.
Great point. This is similar to the argument that we should care about diversity in corporations because a study from McKinsey shows that diverse leadership leads to greater profits. If the opposite were true, and whiter boards were more profitable, would we argue against diversity? Of course not. Therefore that whole line of reasoning is misplaced.