Is epic as lefties lose their jobs after celebrating Charlie Kirk’s death.
What the lefties don’t seem to understand is that freedom of speech is NOT being quashed. What is happening is people are being held ACCOUNTABLE for what they are saying… There is a huge difference between the two.
And they are throwing hissy fits about being ‘cancelled’, but had no problems with it or people losing jobs when they did it to others.
No, we’re not going to play the ‘whataboutism’ game, or the moral equivalency game either…
Those ships have ‘sailed’…
Accountability- It goes both ways now…
Trust me, this is a LOT better that the other options available to us. Start teaching civics again, and teach people how to actually TALK to each other, not AT each other.
TheFeralIrishman has a perfect post about that.
link
I agree with your assessment of what action is actually happening. Celebrating out loud over the death of any person is ghoulish. Almost as if high fiving each other over the news. All of us are held accountable for what we do or say and being chastised is fair.
As for Mr. Kirk, one of my friends told me he thought Charlie Kirk is being welcomed into the Kingdom of Heaven. He likely isn’t suffering – he is being praised for his work and Life here on Earth. I feel sorry for Mr. Kirk’s family – I hope they can find a way to move on without his presence here.
I have seen Charlie Kirk for years talk to people mostly on colleges. It was clear that the colleges were teaching only the Left wing view and Charlie killed it with facts. The numbers showed Charlie moved the numbers heavy to the Right. This was done by Charlie around the world and he expanded his program.
Charlie knew the only way they could stop him was through violence, which was death. The Left people cheering his death is allowed per the Fist Amendment but as an employee of Government or a business it is not as it not good for anyone. These people need to be removed as you do not know who you work with or who is helping you.
I’ve read people squawking about being deprived of their First Amendment rights to free speech. They fail to consider that those rights pertain to GOVERNMENT ACTION, not private action, not logical consequences.
Speech is, in fact, not without consequences; even government consequences when directed at producing lawless action, AND likely to produce such action.
Regardless, Walmart gets to fire you if you call a customer a fat old *****. That’s not protected speech, and it’s not government action. It’s just misrepresenting the corporation. So, the corporation gets to show you the door. It’s what the corporation regards as offensive, not what you regard as offensive.
” Beam Me Up Scottie !!” please ?
The mean side of me thinks this was an opportunity for entities to rid themselves of p.i.a.’s that were otherwise untouchable; not any change of heart by the entities. Secondary motive being keeping funding/customers.
The problem I see is that like all vermin, they will run and hide.
THEY cancelled us for supporting the military, questioning health fraud, wanting to have only citizens vote and live here (for the most part,) wanting people to be judged by the content of their character and not the color of their skin, for being near the Washington Mall on J6 and so much more. Cancelled for soft squishy things like telling the truth.
(I almost got fired for pointing out that the Tuskegee Airmen were so successful was that they were the top of the African-American flyers and they got months of additional training in England and they were all pretty much well educated whereas the average white pilot was far less educated, got far less flying time and wasn’t consolidated into an elite unit. For shame on me for pointing out what was said IN THE DAMN MOVIE!!!)
Now they’re getting actually getting cancelled for actually being complete butt-holes.
Pardon me if I don’t care at all.
All-Thanks for the comments, and no disagreement here.
“Expletives deleted”, to (((them))).
Norms are norms, and they change over time. Customs, mores, however you want to say that.
I have the Napier quote come to mind, and as well Arthur Harris on the whirlwind.
Hitler cared little at times for laws of war, and directed those military forces under him to disregard them in some ways. After he failed to bomb the UK into surrender, the norms he established made it possibly appropriate to select similar tactics. (Okay, mirroring is very much not mandatory, and people whose goals are different might not select the same means, and one can reprise without trying to compete with the enemy in committing atrocities. Arthur Harris and Ira Eaker did think they had some purpose to what they oversaw.)
The thing about going after people for covid-19 misinformation, for transphobia, for racism or whatever, it changes the norms. Lots of people might be tempted to say ‘it is okay, and will be okay, because my faction will reign forever, so we do not have to worry about our tactics turned on us’.
That is maybe not the best predictive model in the world.
Kirk had something like one semester of university.
If the fancy degree programs were good training, and if the academic fields had correct behavioral modeling, then Kirk should not have been able to compete with professors in persuasion about behavioral models.
Rhetoric is part of the classical liberal arts. Faculty skilled in rhetoric, and used to real competition would not fear losing at Kirk if they had an actual case to make.
To have been upset about what Kirk was doing seemingly means either having a phoney baloney degree and being insecure about that, or deeply invested in some other way around the nonsensical behavioral claims that have been made in certain journals.
Look, my dudes, I have maybe wasted years of my life trying stuff with some of this tertiary theory. What someone says in public somewhere has nothing to do with whether the ideas I have invested in are true or not.
The people who made unwise personal choices in how they felt about social status are the ones who were upset at what Kirk was doing.
Kamala Harris was basically the candidate for cargo-cult scholars. There were literally people in academia who perceived her as good ad copy for academia, and there were literally people in academia who thought she could win.
They were upset that she lost, and maybe insecure. Perhaps desperate.
The people who extended that to trying to perform celebration in public over the murder of a man?
These are not well people. If a man had publicly displayed himself being so unwell with alcohol, or with drugs, we might see a firing as being directly justified. Possibly also institutionalization and treatment.
This is not merely punishment for a political crime.
They are ill, and maybe a change of environment would improve their circumstances.
If they are persistently so ill, then they are a liability to an employer.
Now, we should try to set the norms that we would live under.
I would not want to live in the world where the ill are never fired, no matter how they behave, no matter how they treat others. I don’t necessarily want constant hair trigger firings. No firings at all sounds like hell for everyone else around them, and like blacklisting for anyone already known to have issues. (second, third order effects, etc.)
I think Kirk deserved an honorary doctorate, for being correct about at least one of the major problems at current American universities. If a university had done so, they would have been improving their own standing by exploiting his.
Rights come with responsibilities. The two are knitted together. Always has been.
Many are just now learning that. Many are relearning that.
Bob- Agreed!
r- That they are!!!
Hillsdale College’s Larry Arnn wrote a eulogy for Charlie Kirk. It turns out that Mr. Kirk took 30 of Hillsdale’s excellent online courses, including taking and passing the (non-trivial) test for each one.
Un-degreed, yes. Uneducated? No.
Bingo.
The Official Stamp is not at all required for an education.
Those who live or die by the Official Stamp, some of them have no education at all, and still want to count coup on everyone else because of the Official Stamp, and because of making prestige or luxury statements.
Mainstream universities have fewer reasons for anyone to attend, and fewer reasons to exist.
So there are a bunch of different models of the academic fields.
Consider, say, chemical engineering. (a rare degree program)
Is it necessarily easy to beat a chemical engineering PhD on a question of chemical engineering?
(Well, it can be fairly easy to beat a PhD who is overconfident,and carelessly makes unnecessary statements. And it is very very easy to be overconfident when it comes to applications of one’s field.
If one is employed as an engineer at a company, one will be making some statemetn’s aobut one’s field. And, well if one is certain that one never says anything wrong, that tends to make it trivially easy for everyone that works with one to understand that one is wrong.)
If our hypothetical chem e is careful, makes relatively few statements, and admits error easily, it may actually be hard to notice when he is wrong.
If you haven’t studied transport, and if there is a minor but important error in his calculations of a transport problem, he is actually more likely to find that than you are. But, a bachelors or masters Chem e, or somebody from another field who took transport, might also find such an error.
This is because applied maths is maybe reproducible without some special secret magic that you need to be initiated into, and is supposed to be reproducible with recipes as described.
The applied maths theory of a field improving over time is that recipes sorta work, old recipes should work as well as they ever did, and we also have newer recipes, and newer ways to create recipes.
A competing model is that researchers within a field have mysteries that outsiders cannot comprehend, and outsiders only have the option of trusting and accepting.
Well, academics have been working with government to fuck us using this other method.
They are pretending that historical work, and people trained on the older iterations of the field are just not equipped to understand the most recent mysteries, and likewise are ‘uneducated’ and have to accept claims on faith.
Well, the respect people had was earned by the older researchers who are no longer there, and who are not responsible for this latest shit.
We’ve basically either shown that the fields are getting worse, or that cooperation between the fields is very harmful, or both.
Steve Deace gives an excellent outline of what direction people should choose, better than I could give. The video is over 27 minutes but worth all of that time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMesXQP_LDg&t=704s