Quote:
Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield
I didn’t say he deserved to be fired for other reasons. I said the other reasons are valid bases upon which to ask that he be fired or that he be fired. Whether they were proven or not, or if in reality the photo led to the firing, is unknown.
|
So you are willing to assume that he was fired for the wrong reasons, but you are not willing to assume that he was fired for the right reasons, even though a fair reading of the NPR story is that he had it coming. Sounds like believing in "cancel culture" involves projecting a simple narrative about "cancel culture" on ambiguous situations where something else entirely might have been going on. If you just assume cancel culture is a huge problem, then you can believe cancel culture is a huge problem.
Quote:
|
One would think if the discrimination claims were strong, there’d have been a claim made to the EEOC.
|
Only if one has never, ever, ever thought about why many people would not think of making well-founded discrimination claims to the EEOC. But this is good -- it's another examine of using assumptions and the burden of proof to create a case of cancel culture. 'No one sued him -- he must have been unfairly victimized by cancel culture.'
