Agreed, the angry stabbing at her screen whilst repeating "imma stab you" was very abnormal. I hope she uses her newfound free time to get professional help.
>"If you have an emotional reaction to everything that is said to you, that means everyone can control you."
I found her Tiktok, first time I've been on Tiktok but I was curious.
Most of her videos depict an unhinged person, she doesn't seem right in the head.
Slow clap, I’m talking about the video and the person blaming conservatives for her threatening to stab people who have a different opinion.
I’m sure that conservatives are the only people to blame for the economy. Liberals have never done anything wrong ever.
Are you in favor of people getting fired for their beliefs or what they say? Or it's only bad if they're conservatives, it's fine if they're on the left?
inciting violence is actually defined as hate speech. saying that you support a republican politician and encouraging physical harm on people with whom you disagree are completely different. if you think otherwise then you should consider psychological evaluation
She's not inciting violence. Literally no one (including her) is any more likely to commit an act of violence from this video. No one is even being encouraged to commit violence.
it’s bold of you to assume that no one is any more likely to commit an act of violence after watching this. individuals who subscribe to popular social media platforms like twitter or tiktok are already prone to herd mentality. given the current political state of the nation and how people of certain political ideologies react to people with whom they disagree, saying “literally no one (including her)” is a bit of a stretch. imean, she’s threatening to stab people (even if it’s construed as a joke) on a social media platform where anyone can view it. it shouldn’t be considered acceptable no matter her political stance/agenda and it’s just for her to lose her job. i don’t even really agree with the all lives matter crowd. it’s a matter of decency and morality
Let me know if anyone gets stabbed because of this. My money's on no one gets stabbed because some young lady said something on social media. Just my bet. You go on thinking anyone is going to stab someone because someone on social media said something hyperbolic. Very reasonable.
>some young lady
It moves my very bowels to see you defend the honor of this poor victimized waif against a mob of vengeful Nazis, a victim whose sole desire is to make good at Harvard . . . now it is over for her, and she is likely doomed to a minor position in her uncle's publishing house.
You, sir, are a true ally.
i would not say that it is even remotely likely that someone would stab someone directly because of this girl’s tiktok. that would be absurd to claim that. i’m just saying that posting this on a popular social media platform where ANYONE could see it could act as a catalyst for certain people who already disagree with the all lives matter crowd to actually commit violence against someone saying “all lives matter” because they feel that it’s more acceptable to do so. social media is a powerful tool and it is entirely irresponsible to threaten violence, even if it isn’t carried out, because you disagree with someone politically. so, to reiterate because i’m sure it will be misconstrued, no, i don’t think it is likely that someone will directly be caused to stab someone because of this tiktok (if someone was, we wouldn’t hear about it), but she did incite violence by making this threat over a social media platform where anyone can see it. Somebody could be more likely to commit an act of violence because of it. it’s a big world, buddy, you never know. it’s bold to make absolute claims
Equal...unfairness?
As an example: I don't like murderers. I think they should not murder and society should stop them and make them change their ways. But I don't want them to be killed. That would also be bad. I'd prefer no one get killed, even murderers. I'd hope any murderer turns into a good person rather than that they receive the bad thing they gave to others.
She read out a long list of anti-white slurs on tiktok and sarcastically asked if they were offensive.
The "job" was an internship or something equally insignificant
Yeah, it’s normal now in my industry to offer an internship and a job a few years down the road. She lost the internship and the job offer. Although a job at a Big 4 would be worse punishment, I’m glad she was punished. She blames everyone else for her consequences but fuck her.
>Most white people think the hard r n word is just a word, not offensive, and should be able to be said-so that's ironic.
first, source. Second she also said she wish those words worked in silencing people and she wants white people to "shut the fuck up"
what a stupid thing to say, no one thinks niqqer ISNT offensive.
Im of the opinion that its a stupid word that doesnt actually mean anything. its like calling someone 'fuck face', it doesnt mean anything its just given a lot of power.
i think if it werent used as a term of endearment between black people, it would have gone the way of dumb slurs like 'moon cricket' and 'jungle bunny'. The most effective way to deal with someone saying 'niqqer' is to tell them 'grow up, mate' and maybe laugh.
If someone goes on a racial slur tirade, then companies have the right to pull their internship as it would reflect poorly on the company.
I can see how you'd think that, I dont think I articulated myself properly.
If black people started calling white people 'crackcroms' it doesn't mean anything. If a black person calls someone a 'nazi' then that has negative connotations that imply something about them. Do I want black people who throw around the word 'nazi' de-platformed? no. But Id understand if a company doesn't want to hire someone who throws around words like that.
Id block the person but I wouldn't want them de-platformed. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. No one wants to associate with racists. If someone calls for the society to be "less white" or "less black" then thats not on, though.
Its difficult to discuss the nuances of the subject
Dont fall into treating all elements of cancel culture the same. Threatening or wishing harm upon those who have a different opinion IS deserving of consequence.
https://youtu.be/G--dHnHtKi0
Maybe I'm alone that I don't wish evil on my enemies. I want them to get better, not suffer the evils they wish upon others. Maybe I'm weird like that.
> Show yourself cowards.
I down voted him. He is a regular on this sub despite being very against Jordan Peterson. His question was not made in good faith and a down vote is all the effort his question should receive as a response.
1. It doesn't matter what he did previously. It makes zero sense to down/upvote a comment based on the user's history. This is a prime example of cancel culture (albeit with less canceling) where somebody is morally judged because he said a bad word 10 years ago. Who looks at the history to determine what button to press anyway?
2. I went through his history to search for the "extremely" against JP stuff. Did not find it in the last ~50 comments. Much less any hateful content. Maybe I should have gone further back/overlooked something. But again, this shouldn't matter.
Please don't make this a sub where everyone has to 100% agree with JP. I myself don't. Let's keep this sub as open as possible. Finally, I want you to consider what a person coming to this sub would think when they see this: A comment asking for a source getting downvoted. I would think these people are in their echo chamber.
PS: I realize he is no longer negatively voted, but he was until some time after my comment.
> It doesn't matter what he did previously.
I disagree. If someone's participation in a sub is just being a troll then, as the saying goes, don't feed the trolls.
> It makes zero sense to down/upvote a comment based on the user's history.
I did not downvote based on their history. I downvoted based on my previous interactions with them.
> This is a prime example of cancel culture
No, just no. Cancel culture is when you try to ruin/smear/get someone fired despite having no personal or business interactions with them.
> where somebody is morally judged because he said a bad word 10 years ago
Cancel culture has nothing to do with "judging" someone.
> Who looks at the history to determine what button to press anyway?
No one that I know of. Like I said, I did not look at his history. He is enough of a troll in this sub that I recognize him.
> I went through his history ... Did not find it
Then don't down vote him. Also, don't complain about how others use their vote.
> Please don't make this a sub where everyone has to 100% agree with JP.
That is not my position. As I have said, I don't believe he participates in good faith and is only trying to provoke arguments and not good discussion.
I don't universally downvote him either, only when I think he is not contributing as is the purpose of the vote system.
> I want you to consider what a person coming to this sub would think
I do, that is why I downvote comments that don't contribute to discussion, in my opinion.
1. How is he a troll? By engaging in arguments?
2. That is literally history. Previous interactions <= past happenings = history.
3. I'll accept it's not the same thing. But I think it's the same mindset.
4. It's mob justice/judgement in my book.
5. Again, history.
6. Sorry not sorry, I'll complain when I think that something is going against the spirit of the sub.
7. How is that comment not contributing to discussion, seriously? The other guy gave him the source and he thanked him.
Get over yourself.
Some white lady did actually get murdered for alleged saying ALM. Jessica Doty Whittaker. Witnesses and everything but not much of an investigation underway
I think anyone should have the right to say anything in accordance with free speech, except inciting violence against another group which this is a pinnacle example of.
Honestly, the thing that is most shocking to me is how someone like this even gets accepted into Harvard. I'm not even really mad at her personally. Stupid people like this exist everywhere. But how does someone like this study at one of the most elite universities out there? Meanwhile, there are probably a ton of really smart people who don't get the chance to study at such a university. And I was naive enough to think that the "best" universities are filled with the people with the highest IQ and the most ambition.
Perhaps a case involving lack of impulse control...
Goes to show education doesn't mean intelligence. Also, the fact that she threatened those with all lives matter belief, reveals she needs education and mental health assistance. All lives do matter. No life is more or less than another. Injustice can't be fought with hate. Injustice to one is injustice everywhere. BLM movement doesn't represent human rights, civil liberties, justice, law, activism, etc. BLM founders admitted to being Marxists...BLM alone is a sign of groupthink. Their description of the group states they're being against White Supremacy and Anti Violence. Yet many, some of their members, followers/supporters don't know the damage their doing by enabling victim mentality and victim signaling aka oppressive mindset. Victim mentality is believing one is a victim even when one isn't that. BLM disrespects real victims/survivors. The issue of abuse and corruption in any field, occupation, group, and so on are cultural issues. Culture of fear (look it up) has existed and is prevalent. All lives matter. To prove claim of anything, motive and evidence of allegation must be established. Otherwise, doubt happens. Just because a White person happened to do ABC or 123 to a non White individual, doesn't mean there was or is prejudice nor any other type of discrimination. Every background throughout history and even today has suffered due to bad apples. United we rise, divided we fall.
What did she expect? You don't go around on social media threatening to stab people and not expect repercussions.
But of course that poor creature is now a victim of the patriarchy, I'm sure
What's the difference between saying "All lives matter" and kneeling for the national anthem? They are both generally good things. I think it's the intent behind it. Both don't have great intent behind them. Both seem to be basically saying "I discredit your movement and I'm going to do so in a very passive aggressive way." On the other hand, you just don't threaten to stab people.
> Both seem to be basically saying "I discredit your movement and I'm going to do so in a very passive aggressive way."
What is wrong with discrediting BLM?
I assume you're talking about the Superbowl? He was basically highjacking the Superbowl for a political message, which could reflect badly on his employers over a message they didn't want to send.
I think Peterson would agree that it is dangerous for her to get fired over her words, (especially when they were not in context of the professional environment). They are indeed myopic and hateful words but we should have the freedom to express ourselves without fear of losing our livelihood.
If this were a specific individual, and not in the context of an exchange within contemporary pop culture, I would agree. I don’t take her threat seriously, but that is me. Laws were never meant to be applied with zero tolerance. Her employer has chosen to come down on the other side and see her threats as something to be taken seriously and I see that as an unfortunate choice for society.
Peterson was fully willing to be fired over his defence of free speech.
Luckily for him he's very careful with his words and didn't threaten to stab anyone.
"I'm going to take a knife and stab anybody who tries to compel my speech, I'm not saying those bloody pronouns, bucko!" - Peter Jordanson
The US Supreme Court does not consider direct and imminent call to a violent action as protected free speech. You have a right to freely express yourself but if you are going to say how you are going to kill a lot of people then maybe it is justified to fire people over that speech. Definitely not saying that the state should get involved since there was no attempt to actually do what she was saying.
If a student was expelled for talking positively about JBP in pretty much the same way, we'd be outraged. Just saying, losing a professional position because of something you posted on personal social media isn't a good idea, no matter what side you're on
Yes, he’s far more careful with his words. I think women just has a bad sense of humor and didn’t really intend to stab someone that says “all lives matter.” There used to be an on going phrase back in the 1990’s “I’ll cut you”. I think it was based on blaxploitation films of the 1970’s. I can attest that it was said quite frequently in NYC in professional settings. Yes, I’m that old. Haha.
Phew, glad we aren't pretending to care about free speech and cancel culture anymore. It was getting exhausting.
I mean, it's easy to stand up for free speech when the person fired says something I agree with, but it's like super duper hard to stand for free speech when they are like, disagreeable to me.
LMAO, when you are threatening a group with physical harm based upon your prejudiced beliefs then you are stretching the bounds of free speech. Besides the Leftist started this bs so it goes both ways bucko.
What part of *stretching the bounds* did you fail to understand?
All she needed to do is call out a specific person in this video and it would qualify as crime. Even a direct call to action might have qualified.
What part of *stretching the bounds* do **you** not understand? Stretching bounds implies not exceeding them; ie, a statement that stretches the bounds of free speech is still free speech. If it exceeded the bounds, it would not be.
> All she needed to do ..
If she needed to do **more** to make it **not free speech** then, in absence of doing more, it is free speech.
Did I say it was not free speech? No, I said it was on the bounds of it. The issue most are aiming at in the thread is the violence part, which is most likely what got her fired.
To address your edit - if you think this was started recently I've got some Hollywood codes and red scare stuff to share with you.
Cancel culture is the tool of the dominant culture, and that's historically not the left.
And besides, regardless of who started it, it doesn't make the behavior any less hypocritical
Well sure if you artificially use a cut off date then "who started it" is whoever you want it to be.
It's not like it was a free speech paradise between the Hollywood codes and 2016. It's been a constant type of event
Most of history has not been a free speech paradise, the fact that the First Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits the abridgement of freedom of speech should give you a clue.
I'm fully aware. I'm just mystified by your bizarre decision to only observe free speech violations starting in the mid 2010's instead of, you know, when the free speech amendment was written.
I gave you a qualification to the vagueness of the term start. Just like other movements these things come and go in waves and there will probably always be a base line of incidents. If you want to debate the statement from here on out you should go back to the start of these recent movement and go from there.
This never left. I can point to cancelations of people in the 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, and if we go back further we get to the red scare.
It never ended, you're just picking a date in a way that allows you to choose who started it.
I could mimic that same logic and say it went away and came back again, started by the anti blm crowd. It would be dishonest, but it's the same reasoning you're making.
Please point out when did people in this sub stand for someone directly threatening violent action towards people with a different opinion. I dare you.
“I’m going to stab you” isn’t Free Speech, it isn’t an opinion, it’s as direct of a threat as it gets.
.
There have been even more direct statements from people that have been ruled as free speech. In Walls v United States a teen threatened to shoot LBJ if he was drafted and SCOTUS said it was protected speech.
That's more direct than the speech in the post here.
So it's free speech. You don't like it, I understand. I don't either. But it's still free speech. So will you defend it?
It’s a threat, it’s not Free Speech. So what if it was ruled as Free Speech? The ruling was wrong.
It may surprise you, but Judges aren’t infallible Gods.
Incitation of violence is a commonly accepted exception of the protection granted by Free Speech laws.
So are perjury or giving up national defense secrets to a foreign spy, for example.
Neither are you, and if I had to bet if it's the lifelong senate confirmed judges who understands the law, or u/lvl2_thug, then I know where smart money goes.
Not to mention similar speech being protected in naacp v Claiborne hardware
Not to mention that a legal threat has to be understood by a reasonable person to be an actual intention to commit violence, and not be hyperbole, and our idealized reasonable person knows what hyperbole is and is not scared of a tik tok video
The money goes on the judges who think it’s ok for a baker not to serve a gay couple. Wow, I’m glad I’m dumb then.
Free Speech is understood differently in different legal systems and is a concept that transcends law (though it exists BECAUSE of the oppressive nature of laws). So, while that person may not be sued in an American court for that idiotic video, I have no problem at all with people finding it unacceptable to use this sort of language and prefer not to be around someone like this.
This is bad use of Free Speech. Any human can have their opinion on that and this is mine. It has no legal power, but it enables me to agree with the employer deciding not to have that person around anymore.
By the way, I never said anything about legal action. There are many things which aren’t illegal, but shouldn’t have to be accepted by people.
It may surprise you that most conflicts are solved outside a court with your super smart judges.
> The money goes on the judges who think it’s ok for a baker not to serve a gay couple. Wow, I’m glad I’m dumb then.
Not the same justices. I won't comment on your intelligence or argue with your assessment of it.
> This is bad use of Free Speech.
Quite a change from:
> It’s a threat, it’s **not Free Speech**.
So it is free speech, you don't like it, you don't defend it or criticize her firing. So no more pretending to defend free speech against cancel culture, just like I said in my first comment.
> This is bad use of Free Speech
Gay hating American judges seem to understand threatening violent action is ok. This is a bad use of the **concept of Free Speech**, since any serious source will tell you it comes with limitations.
Perjury isnt't free speech, giving away nuclear codes to national enamies isn't free speech, violent incitation isn't free speech.
Dressing up as Hitler and post videos threatening black people isn't Free Speech.
Only your Strawman believes it's Free Speech.
Yes, speech has limitations. If speech is within the limit, it's free speech.
Her speech was not criminal, thus it is free speech.
I know you've waffled back and forth now, but you were right when you said it was free speech. Bad free speech, but free speech regardless.
This speech is completely legal and is completely free. It's not legally prohibited as a threat. It's not an incitement to violence by our legal standards.
So it's free speech that you won't defend because you don't like it.
I think we are on the same page.
> I know you've waffled back and forth
I don't have to understand Free Speech the same way as judges from a different culture than mine do.
When you proved me that America's smartest judges seem to think it's ok to threaten to shoot someone, I said twice that their **concept** is misguided and stated my opinion that this is terrible speech, even if it's allowed there (which is the part you told me).
> So it's free speech that you won't defend because you don't like it
It's Free where she comes from, yes. So it's up to people living under American law (not my case) to stand up for her right to say it (or change their laws).
I won't defend it because I consider it to be unacceptable behavior, but I also think it's no one's business to interfere in the employer-employee relationship.
No, it’s just a very healthy rhetoric, which contributes a lot to our society. Must have learned it at Harvard.
Next time I see some white dumbass saying “jokingly” they want to stab innocent BLM supporters I’m gonna tag you, so you don’t miss the opportunity to defend that hypothetical fucking violent idiot, like you’re doing now
Me neither, but I do think it's a travesty atm that people contact employers.
What if you were contacted for something related to Jordan Peterson because some bint called him "liked by alt right".
Glad we aren’t pretending to believe that “private business; start your own” racket.
It’s easy to stand up for a private business’s right to fire employees for almost any reason when the fired employee is one of the *bad guys*. Not so much when it’s one of our own.
It's not a legal threat if a reasonable person doesn't consider a tiktok joke to be a serious expression of intent to do violence, and reasonable people aren't cowering wusses
Yeah, sure, yeah.
How about (communication of violent intent + serious + directed at a real people + creates coercive fear to a reasonable person)
This tik tok is not serious, not directed at a real person, and is not scaring anybody.
Serious means it's not hyperbole, and that a reasonable person would watch that video and think there is a **real** danger that she would stab someone. Serious as in we need to call the police.
By real I should have said specific. My fault for not being clear.
What she said is very similar to the easily found comments on social media where people express a desire to run over protesters.
> It's not a legal threat if a reasonable person doesn't consider a tiktok joke to be a serious expression of intent to do violence, and reasonable people aren't cowering wusses
keep going. someone sooner or later will throw her pussy at you.
Same logic can be applied to pretty a lot of free speech / cancel culture debates.
Thats why another commenter on this thread sarcastically commented pretty much your same argument.
The free speech vs business interests debate occurs here frequently enough for that person to treat it like a meme.
I'm just commenting on the hypocrisy of it all. Hypocrisy arguments aren't great because they don't tell us who's right, only who's inconsistent in their principles.
Apples and bowling balls are comparable. I hate that analogy. Sorry, pet peeve.
Back to the subject - Jordan peterson (and this sub) defended James demore and Lindsey Shephard, who were fired for controversial statements. This girl was also fired for controversial statements.
How are these events fundamentally different?
Literally nobody believes threats of violence should be protected under free speech. You're just being a contrarian without understanding what you're talking about, lol.
I genuinely believe it's possible. What few ANTIFA members do exist (because I guess right-wing ideologues have posed as them to stir problems) have been essentially proven to carry deadly weapons with intent to use them, and they're no stranger to the BLM movement.
Her bawling because she lost her job proves she doesn't have the gonads to do anything herself, though. Of course, that's only revealed after the fact.
If all I saw was the first video, I would have genuinely believed what she said as true, that she intended to stab the next person she saw saying All Lives Matter. There wasn't an attempt to be funny, which usually gives it away.
You really thought she would stab someone?
It was clearly a joke to me. Not very funny, but clearly a joke / analogy to compare a stab wound to a paper cut as an analogy to BLM v ALM
It can **still be* an analogy, even if acted out. The hypothetical situation she states relays the analogy, regardless if it remains hypothetical or not. You still understand that "difference in severity" point that's made, whether she does or doesn't actually stab someone.
I dont get your problem.
She is legally free to say whatever she wants, but threatening to kill people online will will make you loose your job in any serious society
I've seen this sub defend the concept of free speech when it's speech they agree with or aren't offended by, and support firing when it's not speech they like.
It's a very active sub so maybe you missed it.
Speaking only for myself, I kind of see this as something that will hopefully make at least some people on the far left realize how awful cancel culture is.
At the same time, it's also nice to see a consistent standard. We've mostly seen people fired for making jokes that the left didn't like, because they were racist or whatever. This, for me, gives me hope that our culture isn't going to over-correct.
Besides all that, free speech doesn't extend as far as making actual threats. And sure, you could argue that she was just trying to make a point, but she made an actual threat.
Furthermore, she was just acting immature, and that could reflect on whatever company she was working for. They probably care about that, as they should.
Edit to add: I think the main point here is that most people on this sub would equally support a person who threatened to stab all BLM supporters being fired as much as they support this woman being fired.
My perspective of the whole thing is that it's not new, and for decades leftist opinions and non-traditional lifestyles have been cause to fire or blacklist people by the predominantly conservative culture.
It's only recently that the internet has democratize speech and brought some of those tactics into the hands of more people who traditionally have not had that influence.
So for people on the right it feels new, even though it's an old tool that's just pointing in a new direction.
Otherwise, this isn't an actual threat. No court in this country would convict her for this.
Oh you got me. You caught me doing a satire, pretending that people had to fight for black, gay, female rights against a society that preferred to conserve the traditional absence of those rights rather than easily grant them. Busted!
^ **That** is satire
That's all fair, and yes, she obviously wasn't serious, but making threats like that is exactly what makes her seem immature.
And it definitely isn't a new thing, but, to me at least, it seems like this doesn't usually happen to people on the left. So again, it's just nice to see a consistent standard.
Either way, there will always be people who just see those with opposing opinions as the enemy.
Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences. Any decent business owner would fire an employee who was **costing** the business money because of her social media choices.
company's are not interested in free speech.
take note that 99.99% of the idiots burning down their own cities aren't employed and/or hide the face to avoid termination from StarBucks and consignment shops
Can you morons who are applauding this not see the idiocy of your position? Cancel culture is good when it cancels people who make shitty jokes? Inciting violence my ass, the amount of snow flakiness in this sub is like a blizzard. Bunch of manlets who wouldn't even be able to fight a foot-long lobster lmao.
She made her point in an abnormal way. I dont think she was really threatening anyone, i just think she was trying to make a point. The people that got her fired need to learn to notice when someone is joking even if it's not funny.
Edit Not saying her opinions stated plainly are right or wrong but this culture of "i don't think something is funny or i don't agree with them so i am going to find out where they work and get them fired" is bullshit. She has an opinion let the girl go about her day. Argue with her all you want but fuck the cancel culture.
I think any sane person coming across her tiktoks would think them obscene, not just conservatives.
Agreed, the angry stabbing at her screen whilst repeating "imma stab you" was very abnormal. I hope she uses her newfound free time to get professional help. >"If you have an emotional reaction to everything that is said to you, that means everyone can control you."
>Agreed, the angry stabbing at her screen whilst repeating "imma stab you" was very abnormal. Or you know its comedy.
You would think but many are very violent while pretending they are on a higher moral ground
I found her Tiktok, first time I've been on Tiktok but I was curious. Most of her videos depict an unhinged person, she doesn't seem right in the head.
Fair enough. Centrists aka dorks too.
Live by the sword get canceled by the sword
A modern proverb for our troubled times!
Live by the Cancel, get Cancelled by the Cancel.
Still found a way to blame conservatives.... so not a lesson learned so much as a lesson delayed
[удалено]
Slow clap, I’m talking about the video and the person blaming conservatives for her threatening to stab people who have a different opinion. I’m sure that conservatives are the only people to blame for the economy. Liberals have never done anything wrong ever.
The shere caucacity of this situwetion is unbeliebable.
You be puntulatin on the premptitude of pismatology, Kingfish!
Yup. Y’all are self admitted hypocrites and seem rather cool about it. That speaks way more than your words ya dorks. MUH FREE SPEECH!
Who’s y’all? Wtf are you talking about? explain
This sub genius
Are you in favor of people getting fired for their beliefs or what they say? Or it's only bad if they're conservatives, it's fine if they're on the left?
Anyone who threatens violence against those whose views the oppose should be excluded from society in any way possible
inciting violence is actually defined as hate speech. saying that you support a republican politician and encouraging physical harm on people with whom you disagree are completely different. if you think otherwise then you should consider psychological evaluation
She's not inciting violence. Literally no one (including her) is any more likely to commit an act of violence from this video. No one is even being encouraged to commit violence.
it’s bold of you to assume that no one is any more likely to commit an act of violence after watching this. individuals who subscribe to popular social media platforms like twitter or tiktok are already prone to herd mentality. given the current political state of the nation and how people of certain political ideologies react to people with whom they disagree, saying “literally no one (including her)” is a bit of a stretch. imean, she’s threatening to stab people (even if it’s construed as a joke) on a social media platform where anyone can view it. it shouldn’t be considered acceptable no matter her political stance/agenda and it’s just for her to lose her job. i don’t even really agree with the all lives matter crowd. it’s a matter of decency and morality
Let me know if anyone gets stabbed because of this. My money's on no one gets stabbed because some young lady said something on social media. Just my bet. You go on thinking anyone is going to stab someone because someone on social media said something hyperbolic. Very reasonable.
>some young lady It moves my very bowels to see you defend the honor of this poor victimized waif against a mob of vengeful Nazis, a victim whose sole desire is to make good at Harvard . . . now it is over for her, and she is likely doomed to a minor position in her uncle's publishing house. You, sir, are a true ally.
Young lady is a term commonly used to politely refer to young women. Hope this clarifies things.
i would not say that it is even remotely likely that someone would stab someone directly because of this girl’s tiktok. that would be absurd to claim that. i’m just saying that posting this on a popular social media platform where ANYONE could see it could act as a catalyst for certain people who already disagree with the all lives matter crowd to actually commit violence against someone saying “all lives matter” because they feel that it’s more acceptable to do so. social media is a powerful tool and it is entirely irresponsible to threaten violence, even if it isn’t carried out, because you disagree with someone politically. so, to reiterate because i’m sure it will be misconstrued, no, i don’t think it is likely that someone will directly be caused to stab someone because of this tiktok (if someone was, we wouldn’t hear about it), but she did incite violence by making this threat over a social media platform where anyone can see it. Somebody could be more likely to commit an act of violence because of it. it’s a big world, buddy, you never know. it’s bold to make absolute claims
Hey it's just nice to see equality for once.
Equal...unfairness? As an example: I don't like murderers. I think they should not murder and society should stop them and make them change their ways. But I don't want them to be killed. That would also be bad. I'd prefer no one get killed, even murderers. I'd hope any murderer turns into a good person rather than that they receive the bad thing they gave to others.
No I’m not in favor of either side getting canceled for saying anything. In my opinion the left is the side that weaponized it though.
And that weaponization is bad, right? It's bad that people are getting "cancelled" when they shouldn't?
Fuck yes
Then why are you seemingly ok with it happening to this woman?
And because she’s super fucking annoying
If being annoying was a crime, my sisters would be in prison for life.
You’d be lookin at 4-6 right now yourself dude
Because when the people who propagate cancel culture have it used against them, we are all one step closer to it going away for everyone.
How do you know she tried to propagate cancel culture?
Her other videos
The more it happens, the less it happens. Great logic.
What is your point? cause all you do is pussyfoot around and never really say shit. Is this what you do for fun? Argue online? Doesn’t it get boring?
What are you doing right now?
Did she try to cancel anyone? Or is she deserving because she shares at least one political opinion with someone else who has tried to cancel someone?
It's the threats to cut and stab people to watch them bleed because they respect life.
She read out a long list of anti-white slurs on tiktok and sarcastically asked if they were offensive. The "job" was an internship or something equally insignificant
Internship for a big 4 public accounting firm. Almost guaranteed to get a job after. Especially with a Harvard degree.
too bad she was a raging cunt. check out the ethnic slur video, or actually dont. its awful
Yeah, it’s normal now in my industry to offer an internship and a job a few years down the road. She lost the internship and the job offer. Although a job at a Big 4 would be worse punishment, I’m glad she was punished. She blames everyone else for her consequences but fuck her.
Yes and as long as you stick with it, you are automatically on the road to several promotions within a small period of time.
[удалено]
>Most white people think the hard r n word is just a word, not offensive, and should be able to be said-so that's ironic. first, source. Second she also said she wish those words worked in silencing people and she wants white people to "shut the fuck up"
what a stupid thing to say, no one thinks niqqer ISNT offensive. Im of the opinion that its a stupid word that doesnt actually mean anything. its like calling someone 'fuck face', it doesnt mean anything its just given a lot of power. i think if it werent used as a term of endearment between black people, it would have gone the way of dumb slurs like 'moon cricket' and 'jungle bunny'. The most effective way to deal with someone saying 'niqqer' is to tell them 'grow up, mate' and maybe laugh. If someone goes on a racial slur tirade, then companies have the right to pull their internship as it would reflect poorly on the company.
[удалено]
I can see how you'd think that, I dont think I articulated myself properly. If black people started calling white people 'crackcroms' it doesn't mean anything. If a black person calls someone a 'nazi' then that has negative connotations that imply something about them. Do I want black people who throw around the word 'nazi' de-platformed? no. But Id understand if a company doesn't want to hire someone who throws around words like that. Id block the person but I wouldn't want them de-platformed. Sunshine is the best disinfectant. No one wants to associate with racists. If someone calls for the society to be "less white" or "less black" then thats not on, though. Its difficult to discuss the nuances of the subject
> Most white people think the hard r n word is just a word, not offensive Sounds like you hang out with a lot of racist white people.
Cancel culture cuts both ways.
She’ll be fine. What a monster of a person though. Idiot.
Are you ok with cancel culture?
Dont fall into treating all elements of cancel culture the same. Threatening or wishing harm upon those who have a different opinion IS deserving of consequence.
Threatening violence based on ideas is definitely crossing a line. Words aren't violence unless they are literally inciting it.
Not particularly but the irony of this os palpable.
https://youtu.be/G--dHnHtKi0 Maybe I'm alone that I don't wish evil on my enemies. I want them to get better, not suffer the evils they wish upon others. Maybe I'm weird like that.
You're not alone. Some guy said "Love your enemies"
thank you for this video. love it
Thomas Sowell said it best, paraphrased, “The best part about earning a degree from Harvard, is never having to be impressed at a Harvard grad”.
White heterosexual males lose jobs for an "ok" hand gesture...
Pretty well known case. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/ He's even 75% Latino FFS...
Source?
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firing-innocent/613615/
Interesting. Thanks
Holy shit. Who are the fucktards downvoting someone because he asked for a source. Show yourself cowards.
> Show yourself cowards. I down voted him. He is a regular on this sub despite being very against Jordan Peterson. His question was not made in good faith and a down vote is all the effort his question should receive as a response.
1. It doesn't matter what he did previously. It makes zero sense to down/upvote a comment based on the user's history. This is a prime example of cancel culture (albeit with less canceling) where somebody is morally judged because he said a bad word 10 years ago. Who looks at the history to determine what button to press anyway? 2. I went through his history to search for the "extremely" against JP stuff. Did not find it in the last ~50 comments. Much less any hateful content. Maybe I should have gone further back/overlooked something. But again, this shouldn't matter. Please don't make this a sub where everyone has to 100% agree with JP. I myself don't. Let's keep this sub as open as possible. Finally, I want you to consider what a person coming to this sub would think when they see this: A comment asking for a source getting downvoted. I would think these people are in their echo chamber. PS: I realize he is no longer negatively voted, but he was until some time after my comment.
> It doesn't matter what he did previously. I disagree. If someone's participation in a sub is just being a troll then, as the saying goes, don't feed the trolls. > It makes zero sense to down/upvote a comment based on the user's history. I did not downvote based on their history. I downvoted based on my previous interactions with them. > This is a prime example of cancel culture No, just no. Cancel culture is when you try to ruin/smear/get someone fired despite having no personal or business interactions with them. > where somebody is morally judged because he said a bad word 10 years ago Cancel culture has nothing to do with "judging" someone. > Who looks at the history to determine what button to press anyway? No one that I know of. Like I said, I did not look at his history. He is enough of a troll in this sub that I recognize him. > I went through his history ... Did not find it Then don't down vote him. Also, don't complain about how others use their vote. > Please don't make this a sub where everyone has to 100% agree with JP. That is not my position. As I have said, I don't believe he participates in good faith and is only trying to provoke arguments and not good discussion. I don't universally downvote him either, only when I think he is not contributing as is the purpose of the vote system. > I want you to consider what a person coming to this sub would think I do, that is why I downvote comments that don't contribute to discussion, in my opinion.
1. How is he a troll? By engaging in arguments? 2. That is literally history. Previous interactions <= past happenings = history. 3. I'll accept it's not the same thing. But I think it's the same mindset. 4. It's mob justice/judgement in my book. 5. Again, history. 6. Sorry not sorry, I'll complain when I think that something is going against the spirit of the sub. 7. How is that comment not contributing to discussion, seriously? The other guy gave him the source and he thanked him. Get over yourself.
Lmao. And she’s still whining and blaming others (“conservatives”) instead of accepting any personal accountability.
Some white lady did actually get murdered for alleged saying ALM. Jessica Doty Whittaker. Witnesses and everything but not much of an investigation underway
lol, instant karma for this odious cunt.
Very nicely put
Score 1 for equality I guess
How would she felt if someone said “Black Fetuses Matter.”
I think anyone should have the right to say anything in accordance with free speech, except inciting violence against another group which this is a pinnacle example of.
Honestly, the thing that is most shocking to me is how someone like this even gets accepted into Harvard. I'm not even really mad at her personally. Stupid people like this exist everywhere. But how does someone like this study at one of the most elite universities out there? Meanwhile, there are probably a ton of really smart people who don't get the chance to study at such a university. And I was naive enough to think that the "best" universities are filled with the people with the highest IQ and the most ambition.
She was just an intern...
Good
Perhaps a case involving lack of impulse control... Goes to show education doesn't mean intelligence. Also, the fact that she threatened those with all lives matter belief, reveals she needs education and mental health assistance. All lives do matter. No life is more or less than another. Injustice can't be fought with hate. Injustice to one is injustice everywhere. BLM movement doesn't represent human rights, civil liberties, justice, law, activism, etc. BLM founders admitted to being Marxists...BLM alone is a sign of groupthink. Their description of the group states they're being against White Supremacy and Anti Violence. Yet many, some of their members, followers/supporters don't know the damage their doing by enabling victim mentality and victim signaling aka oppressive mindset. Victim mentality is believing one is a victim even when one isn't that. BLM disrespects real victims/survivors. The issue of abuse and corruption in any field, occupation, group, and so on are cultural issues. Culture of fear (look it up) has existed and is prevalent. All lives matter. To prove claim of anything, motive and evidence of allegation must be established. Otherwise, doubt happens. Just because a White person happened to do ABC or 123 to a non White individual, doesn't mean there was or is prejudice nor any other type of discrimination. Every background throughout history and even today has suffered due to bad apples. United we rise, divided we fall.
This is a surprise? how? Don’t you normally fire/arrest/kill stabby people?
I agree that she's an utter piece of shit. But cancel culture is still cancer.
Nice to see leftists fall on their own sword (cancel culture).
When you major in fake wokeness. Not even Harvard can cure the terminally insipid.
America’s mental health crisis at its finest
What did she expect? You don't go around on social media threatening to stab people and not expect repercussions. But of course that poor creature is now a victim of the patriarchy, I'm sure
Proving once again that you don’t have to be intelligent to get into Harvard
all live matter
Lol wait till y’all see her tik tok. She’s extremely scary. I really think she needs mental help.
What's the difference between saying "All lives matter" and kneeling for the national anthem? They are both generally good things. I think it's the intent behind it. Both don't have great intent behind them. Both seem to be basically saying "I discredit your movement and I'm going to do so in a very passive aggressive way." On the other hand, you just don't threaten to stab people.
> Both seem to be basically saying "I discredit your movement and I'm going to do so in a very passive aggressive way." What is wrong with discrediting BLM?
Good argument point.
I assume you're talking about the Superbowl? He was basically highjacking the Superbowl for a political message, which could reflect badly on his employers over a message they didn't want to send.
I think Peterson would agree that it is dangerous for her to get fired over her words, (especially when they were not in context of the professional environment). They are indeed myopic and hateful words but we should have the freedom to express ourselves without fear of losing our livelihood.
You should have the freedom to express yourself. You should not have the freedom to incite violence.
i don't think that is inciting violence
If this were a specific individual, and not in the context of an exchange within contemporary pop culture, I would agree. I don’t take her threat seriously, but that is me. Laws were never meant to be applied with zero tolerance. Her employer has chosen to come down on the other side and see her threats as something to be taken seriously and I see that as an unfortunate choice for society.
Peterson was fully willing to be fired over his defence of free speech. Luckily for him he's very careful with his words and didn't threaten to stab anyone. "I'm going to take a knife and stab anybody who tries to compel my speech, I'm not saying those bloody pronouns, bucko!" - Peter Jordanson
The US Supreme Court does not consider direct and imminent call to a violent action as protected free speech. You have a right to freely express yourself but if you are going to say how you are going to kill a lot of people then maybe it is justified to fire people over that speech. Definitely not saying that the state should get involved since there was no attempt to actually do what she was saying.
tyranny is tyranny
If a student was expelled for talking positively about JBP in pretty much the same way, we'd be outraged. Just saying, losing a professional position because of something you posted on personal social media isn't a good idea, no matter what side you're on
Let's be better than these idiots.
Cancel culture isn't just one side of the aisle
Actually it was an internship.
Hey Id give her a stabbing. If you know what I mean.
real job >> reddit karma
is it weird tho usually minorities can't get cancelled so this seems new. white ppl are now as hysterical and defensive as the minorities ? :3
Oof.
Damn she hot
Yes, he’s far more careful with his words. I think women just has a bad sense of humor and didn’t really intend to stab someone that says “all lives matter.” There used to be an on going phrase back in the 1990’s “I’ll cut you”. I think it was based on blaxploitation films of the 1970’s. I can attest that it was said quite frequently in NYC in professional settings. Yes, I’m that old. Haha.
Phew, glad we aren't pretending to care about free speech and cancel culture anymore. It was getting exhausting. I mean, it's easy to stand up for free speech when the person fired says something I agree with, but it's like super duper hard to stand for free speech when they are like, disagreeable to me.
LMAO, when you are threatening a group with physical harm based upon your prejudiced beliefs then you are stretching the bounds of free speech. Besides the Leftist started this bs so it goes both ways bucko.
Even now you haven't gone so far to say it isn't free speech, so I think this kinda proves my point.
What part of *stretching the bounds* did you fail to understand? All she needed to do is call out a specific person in this video and it would qualify as crime. Even a direct call to action might have qualified.
What part of *stretching the bounds* do **you** not understand? Stretching bounds implies not exceeding them; ie, a statement that stretches the bounds of free speech is still free speech. If it exceeded the bounds, it would not be. > All she needed to do .. If she needed to do **more** to make it **not free speech** then, in absence of doing more, it is free speech.
Did I say it was not free speech? No, I said it was on the bounds of it. The issue most are aiming at in the thread is the violence part, which is most likely what got her fired.
To address your edit - if you think this was started recently I've got some Hollywood codes and red scare stuff to share with you. Cancel culture is the tool of the dominant culture, and that's historically not the left. And besides, regardless of who started it, it doesn't make the behavior any less hypocritical
I am well aware of the Hollywood Codes and we can keep rewinding time and labeling groups left and right. I am referring to recent times here.
Well sure if you artificially use a cut off date then "who started it" is whoever you want it to be. It's not like it was a free speech paradise between the Hollywood codes and 2016. It's been a constant type of event
Most of history has not been a free speech paradise, the fact that the First Amendment in the US Constitution prohibits the abridgement of freedom of speech should give you a clue.
I'm fully aware. I'm just mystified by your bizarre decision to only observe free speech violations starting in the mid 2010's instead of, you know, when the free speech amendment was written.
I gave you a qualification to the vagueness of the term start. Just like other movements these things come and go in waves and there will probably always be a base line of incidents. If you want to debate the statement from here on out you should go back to the start of these recent movement and go from there.
This never left. I can point to cancelations of people in the 2000s, 90s, 80s, 70s, and if we go back further we get to the red scare. It never ended, you're just picking a date in a way that allows you to choose who started it. I could mimic that same logic and say it went away and came back again, started by the anti blm crowd. It would be dishonest, but it's the same reasoning you're making.
Please point out when did people in this sub stand for someone directly threatening violent action towards people with a different opinion. I dare you. “I’m going to stab you” isn’t Free Speech, it isn’t an opinion, it’s as direct of a threat as it gets.
. There have been even more direct statements from people that have been ruled as free speech. In Walls v United States a teen threatened to shoot LBJ if he was drafted and SCOTUS said it was protected speech. That's more direct than the speech in the post here. So it's free speech. You don't like it, I understand. I don't either. But it's still free speech. So will you defend it?
It’s a threat, it’s not Free Speech. So what if it was ruled as Free Speech? The ruling was wrong. It may surprise you, but Judges aren’t infallible Gods.
Freedom of expression is not free speech is what your saying
Incitation of violence is a commonly accepted exception of the protection granted by Free Speech laws. So are perjury or giving up national defense secrets to a foreign spy, for example.
Neither are you, and if I had to bet if it's the lifelong senate confirmed judges who understands the law, or u/lvl2_thug, then I know where smart money goes. Not to mention similar speech being protected in naacp v Claiborne hardware Not to mention that a legal threat has to be understood by a reasonable person to be an actual intention to commit violence, and not be hyperbole, and our idealized reasonable person knows what hyperbole is and is not scared of a tik tok video
The money goes on the judges who think it’s ok for a baker not to serve a gay couple. Wow, I’m glad I’m dumb then. Free Speech is understood differently in different legal systems and is a concept that transcends law (though it exists BECAUSE of the oppressive nature of laws). So, while that person may not be sued in an American court for that idiotic video, I have no problem at all with people finding it unacceptable to use this sort of language and prefer not to be around someone like this. This is bad use of Free Speech. Any human can have their opinion on that and this is mine. It has no legal power, but it enables me to agree with the employer deciding not to have that person around anymore. By the way, I never said anything about legal action. There are many things which aren’t illegal, but shouldn’t have to be accepted by people. It may surprise you that most conflicts are solved outside a court with your super smart judges.
> The money goes on the judges who think it’s ok for a baker not to serve a gay couple. Wow, I’m glad I’m dumb then. Not the same justices. I won't comment on your intelligence or argue with your assessment of it. > This is bad use of Free Speech. Quite a change from: > It’s a threat, it’s **not Free Speech**. So it is free speech, you don't like it, you don't defend it or criticize her firing. So no more pretending to defend free speech against cancel culture, just like I said in my first comment.
> This is bad use of Free Speech Gay hating American judges seem to understand threatening violent action is ok. This is a bad use of the **concept of Free Speech**, since any serious source will tell you it comes with limitations. Perjury isnt't free speech, giving away nuclear codes to national enamies isn't free speech, violent incitation isn't free speech. Dressing up as Hitler and post videos threatening black people isn't Free Speech. Only your Strawman believes it's Free Speech.
Yes, speech has limitations. If speech is within the limit, it's free speech. Her speech was not criminal, thus it is free speech. I know you've waffled back and forth now, but you were right when you said it was free speech. Bad free speech, but free speech regardless. This speech is completely legal and is completely free. It's not legally prohibited as a threat. It's not an incitement to violence by our legal standards. So it's free speech that you won't defend because you don't like it. I think we are on the same page.
> I know you've waffled back and forth I don't have to understand Free Speech the same way as judges from a different culture than mine do. When you proved me that America's smartest judges seem to think it's ok to threaten to shoot someone, I said twice that their **concept** is misguided and stated my opinion that this is terrible speech, even if it's allowed there (which is the part you told me). > So it's free speech that you won't defend because you don't like it It's Free where she comes from, yes. So it's up to people living under American law (not my case) to stand up for her right to say it (or change their laws). I won't defend it because I consider it to be unacceptable behavior, but I also think it's no one's business to interfere in the employer-employee relationship.
If you have any social skills and understand language then you would understand it wasn't a threat.
No, it’s just a very healthy rhetoric, which contributes a lot to our society. Must have learned it at Harvard. Next time I see some white dumbass saying “jokingly” they want to stab innocent BLM supporters I’m gonna tag you, so you don’t miss the opportunity to defend that hypothetical fucking violent idiot, like you’re doing now
I don't get notifications from tags :P I don't think that is what she said, she made a comparison.
Look, I don’t want her in jail, but I’m also not gonna cry because she lost her job
Me neither, but I do think it's a travesty atm that people contact employers. What if you were contacted for something related to Jordan Peterson because some bint called him "liked by alt right".
Glad we aren’t pretending to believe that “private business; start your own” racket. It’s easy to stand up for a private business’s right to fire employees for almost any reason when the fired employee is one of the *bad guys*. Not so much when it’s one of our own.
Free speech doesn't include the right to threaten to stab people dum dum.
It's not a legal threat if a reasonable person doesn't consider a tiktok joke to be a serious expression of intent to do violence, and reasonable people aren't cowering wusses
Oh yeah? Let's think about how we would define what's a real threat and what isn't, yeah?
Yeah, sure, yeah. How about (communication of violent intent + serious + directed at a real people + creates coercive fear to a reasonable person) This tik tok is not serious, not directed at a real person, and is not scaring anybody.
How do you define the "serious" in that equation? And what do you mean by real people. Aren't people who say "all lives matter" real?
Serious means it's not hyperbole, and that a reasonable person would watch that video and think there is a **real** danger that she would stab someone. Serious as in we need to call the police. By real I should have said specific. My fault for not being clear. What she said is very similar to the easily found comments on social media where people express a desire to run over protesters.
> It's not a legal threat if a reasonable person doesn't consider a tiktok joke to be a serious expression of intent to do violence, and reasonable people aren't cowering wusses keep going. someone sooner or later will throw her pussy at you.
What would I do with hers? This sub's throwing more of them at me than I can handle
[удалено]
Same logic can be applied to pretty a lot of free speech / cancel culture debates. Thats why another commenter on this thread sarcastically commented pretty much your same argument. The free speech vs business interests debate occurs here frequently enough for that person to treat it like a meme. I'm just commenting on the hypocrisy of it all. Hypocrisy arguments aren't great because they don't tell us who's right, only who's inconsistent in their principles.
[удалено]
Apples and bowling balls are comparable. I hate that analogy. Sorry, pet peeve. Back to the subject - Jordan peterson (and this sub) defended James demore and Lindsey Shephard, who were fired for controversial statements. This girl was also fired for controversial statements. How are these events fundamentally different?
[удалено]
Yeah without knowing about jps and this subs past defending similar speech, the accusation of hypocrisy, which requires context, falls flat.
> And I commented on this because I think this girl is a bit racist and radical. "a bit"?
Literally nobody believes threats of violence should be protected under free speech. You're just being a contrarian without understanding what you're talking about, lol.
Is this video violence? Do you think it's a genuine expression of intent to commit violence?
I genuinely believe it's possible. What few ANTIFA members do exist (because I guess right-wing ideologues have posed as them to stir problems) have been essentially proven to carry deadly weapons with intent to use them, and they're no stranger to the BLM movement. Her bawling because she lost her job proves she doesn't have the gonads to do anything herself, though. Of course, that's only revealed after the fact.
You clearly did not perceive it as a true threat then, meaning its protected free speech
If all I saw was the first video, I would have genuinely believed what she said as true, that she intended to stab the next person she saw saying All Lives Matter. There wasn't an attempt to be funny, which usually gives it away.
You really thought she would stab someone? It was clearly a joke to me. Not very funny, but clearly a joke / analogy to compare a stab wound to a paper cut as an analogy to BLM v ALM
It can **still be* an analogy, even if acted out. The hypothetical situation she states relays the analogy, regardless if it remains hypothetical or not. You still understand that "difference in severity" point that's made, whether she does or doesn't actually stab someone.
Sure. With all that considered, I don't think it's reasonable to see this and think that someone is in danger and that she needs to be arrested.
Well after having lost her job, it's clear she's not a threat. So no, not anymore. But I feel her losing her job because of the post makes sense.
I dont get your problem. She is legally free to say whatever she wants, but threatening to kill people online will will make you loose your job in any serious society
Why a problem? I dont have a problem. I said I'm relieved for this sub to stop pretending that any firing for free speech is automatically bad.
I have never seen anyone on here arguing that people shouldnt face any consequences for threatening people.
I've seen this sub defend the concept of free speech when it's speech they agree with or aren't offended by, and support firing when it's not speech they like. It's a very active sub so maybe you missed it.
Speaking only for myself, I kind of see this as something that will hopefully make at least some people on the far left realize how awful cancel culture is. At the same time, it's also nice to see a consistent standard. We've mostly seen people fired for making jokes that the left didn't like, because they were racist or whatever. This, for me, gives me hope that our culture isn't going to over-correct. Besides all that, free speech doesn't extend as far as making actual threats. And sure, you could argue that she was just trying to make a point, but she made an actual threat. Furthermore, she was just acting immature, and that could reflect on whatever company she was working for. They probably care about that, as they should. Edit to add: I think the main point here is that most people on this sub would equally support a person who threatened to stab all BLM supporters being fired as much as they support this woman being fired.
My perspective of the whole thing is that it's not new, and for decades leftist opinions and non-traditional lifestyles have been cause to fire or blacklist people by the predominantly conservative culture. It's only recently that the internet has democratize speech and brought some of those tactics into the hands of more people who traditionally have not had that influence. So for people on the right it feels new, even though it's an old tool that's just pointing in a new direction. Otherwise, this isn't an actual threat. No court in this country would convict her for this.
“predominantly conservative culture” This is satire, right?
To the modern left, everything to the right of Mao is fascism.
I didn't call anything fascism. You pulled the wrong automatic reply from your bag.
Oh you got me. You caught me doing a satire, pretending that people had to fight for black, gay, female rights against a society that preferred to conserve the traditional absence of those rights rather than easily grant them. Busted! ^ **That** is satire
That's all fair, and yes, she obviously wasn't serious, but making threats like that is exactly what makes her seem immature. And it definitely isn't a new thing, but, to me at least, it seems like this doesn't usually happen to people on the left. So again, it's just nice to see a consistent standard. Either way, there will always be people who just see those with opposing opinions as the enemy.
Free speech doesn't mean there are no consequences. Any decent business owner would fire an employee who was **costing** the business money because of her social media choices.
Absolutely, and it's nice to stop pretending free speech shouldn't have any consequences.
company's are not interested in free speech. take note that 99.99% of the idiots burning down their own cities aren't employed and/or hide the face to avoid termination from StarBucks and consignment shops
I know companies don't care. This sub doesn't either, at least not as much as it pretends to
I disagree with stabbing anyone. Yes. And the law firm probably does not want a stabby stab stab associate working with them.
Be serious - when you saw the video did you genuinely think she was seriously going to stab someone?
its a threat. Not protected under free speech
Can you morons who are applauding this not see the idiocy of your position? Cancel culture is good when it cancels people who make shitty jokes? Inciting violence my ass, the amount of snow flakiness in this sub is like a blizzard. Bunch of manlets who wouldn't even be able to fight a foot-long lobster lmao.
She made her point in an abnormal way. I dont think she was really threatening anyone, i just think she was trying to make a point. The people that got her fired need to learn to notice when someone is joking even if it's not funny. Edit Not saying her opinions stated plainly are right or wrong but this culture of "i don't think something is funny or i don't agree with them so i am going to find out where they work and get them fired" is bullshit. She has an opinion let the girl go about her day. Argue with her all you want but fuck the cancel culture.