Quote:
Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop
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.
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.'
|
Again you have mischaracterized me. I don’t know why he was fired. Nor do you or the person who prepared the NPR story. I’m not assuming anything.
Your second point also mischaracterizes me. I did not say that the absence of an EEOC filing meant Rappoport was an unfair victim. Consistent with my first point in this reply to you, why he was fired is unknown.
You are trying to convert your assumptions into facts and assert that I am challenging facts. I am not challenging facts. I am challenging your assumptions.
