> If you're accusing people of criminal acts, you should, you know, actually be certain that the acts are criminal.
Intention matters, and that is usually left to the interpretation of the events. A judge or jury is free to decide what is the probable intention behind an action, whatever is the reason given by the accused.
> If I feel unwelcome in my workplace, I am encouraged to report it to my management. Psychological safety is incredibly valuable and is something that a lot of companies don't do enough to foster.
It's true, but to claim that the politely expressed and abstract opinion of someone makes you feel unwelcome is a stretch. And then, what about the feeling of being welcome and psychological safety of all those who might have a similar opinion? Which opinions this applies to? Am I free to go to the management and say that all those who speak of "white privilege" make me feel unwelcome and I want them to be fired?
> if someone started posting swastikas around the office, I would be well within my rights to complain to the higher ups that those things made me feel unwelcome
I don't really get this "makes me feel unwelcome". Being welcome or not is something between you and the company, not a single one of your coworkers. What you mean is that someone is a jerk and is repeatedly posting highly objectionable content. He might be then admonished to stop. End of the issue.
> Google was free to not fire him. My understanding is that it was debated, and that eventually executives decided that ethically firing him was the right decision.
Of course one can ignore the political pressure, media articles, and very vocal minority who asked for him to be fired. But then it becomes a different story.
> the question isn't what you believe their goals to have been, it's what they believe their goals to have been. If the goal wasn't to harass, wasn't to get revenge, but instead to improve their workplace, it's not criminal
If my idea to improve the workplace is to have all those who express feminist ideas to be silenced or fired, because as a male they make me "feel unwelcome", what do you think? Is it all fine?
> if I complain about someone for the wrong reasons, I'm actually harassing the person that I'm complaining about ... Also I don't get to decide what the wrong reasons are.
If I complain about the communists or the Jehova's witnesses because I don't like them, and I try to pressure the management into firing them, I am the one to be fired, not them. And I don't get to decide what the right reasons are. Seems simple to me.
> What you mean is that someone is a jerk and is repeatedly posting highly objectionable content.
The irony here being that this describes the Damore situation precisely.
> Am I free to go to the management and say that all those who speak of "white privilege" make me feel unwelcome and I want them to be fired?
Of course! I certainly don't hope that you'd be fired for that (nor do I think you would be in most places). You seem to be presupposing the reaction management will have, which makes me think that your problem isn't so much with cancelling, but with feeling unable to express your opinion that "white privilege" is a bad thing.
Now, you might not get what you want, which in this situation is perhaps the people who use the term white privilege to be fired. But that's because management doesn't find your complaint valid, which has been my point from the beginning. Your company has agency and culture that drives their decisions irrespective of what people say to them.
> If my idea to improve the workplace is to have all those who express feminist ideas to be silenced or fired, because as a male they make me "feel unwelcome", what do you think? Is it all fine?
My entire point, this entire time, is that individuals should be free to express the opinions they want, and companies should be able to act on those opinions by choosing to associate with who and how they want based on the company's values. If you can find a company that agrees with you and manages to avoid breaking employment law, more power to you. However if your company disagrees with the opinions you express, ultimately it is up to them what action they take. They are free to disassociate with you.
That's all cancelling is: individuals and groups choosing to use exercise their agency and freedom of association. And I support that. So yes, complain about whatever you want. But don't take umbrage when people choose, of their own volition, to disagree with you and to refuse to associate with you.
Ultimately, this is an issue that oppressed people have dealt with forever: that actions have consequences. It's great that society is getting to the point where everyone can face consequences for doing bad things.
> Of course one can ignore the political pressure, media articles, and very vocal minority who asked for him to be fired. But then it becomes a different story.
No one needs to ignore it. You however are ignoring everything else. That's my point.
Intention matters, and that is usually left to the interpretation of the events. A judge or jury is free to decide what is the probable intention behind an action, whatever is the reason given by the accused.
> If I feel unwelcome in my workplace, I am encouraged to report it to my management. Psychological safety is incredibly valuable and is something that a lot of companies don't do enough to foster.
It's true, but to claim that the politely expressed and abstract opinion of someone makes you feel unwelcome is a stretch. And then, what about the feeling of being welcome and psychological safety of all those who might have a similar opinion? Which opinions this applies to? Am I free to go to the management and say that all those who speak of "white privilege" make me feel unwelcome and I want them to be fired?
> if someone started posting swastikas around the office, I would be well within my rights to complain to the higher ups that those things made me feel unwelcome
I don't really get this "makes me feel unwelcome". Being welcome or not is something between you and the company, not a single one of your coworkers. What you mean is that someone is a jerk and is repeatedly posting highly objectionable content. He might be then admonished to stop. End of the issue.
> Google was free to not fire him. My understanding is that it was debated, and that eventually executives decided that ethically firing him was the right decision.
Of course one can ignore the political pressure, media articles, and very vocal minority who asked for him to be fired. But then it becomes a different story.
> the question isn't what you believe their goals to have been, it's what they believe their goals to have been. If the goal wasn't to harass, wasn't to get revenge, but instead to improve their workplace, it's not criminal
If my idea to improve the workplace is to have all those who express feminist ideas to be silenced or fired, because as a male they make me "feel unwelcome", what do you think? Is it all fine?
> if I complain about someone for the wrong reasons, I'm actually harassing the person that I'm complaining about ... Also I don't get to decide what the wrong reasons are.
If I complain about the communists or the Jehova's witnesses because I don't like them, and I try to pressure the management into firing them, I am the one to be fired, not them. And I don't get to decide what the right reasons are. Seems simple to me.