President Duterte still has 91% popularity.

Maybe you are right. Maybe not.

Many dictators do have very high popularity. Only a few do not.

 

There are many things people can get fire for in a workplace. HR constantly updates the rules of conduct and we are constantly taking online courses to learn them. As with any job if you do not wish to follow the company rules regarding speech then you are free to work some place else.

Are there restrictions on your speech at your workplace? Can you stand up and start speaking about reverse discrimination in a meeting?

 

I do not understand this statement.

 

What I mean is that people have been fired for protesting Reverse Discrimination on their own time -- outside their workplace. Can we agree that firing and blacklisting someone for defending victims of Abuse and Discrimination is Enormous Injustice?

 

Any off-topic discussion in a meeting is unwelcome.

But firing people for protesting Reverse Discrimination on their own free time is one of the worst forms of Injustice.

 

You seem to be confused about a couple of things. If you are intending, "cancel culture," to have the meaning related by wikipedia, it has nothing at all to do with human rights. It is all about what is SOCIALLY acceptable, involving things like online shaming (especially of celebrities) and boycotts. Being liked by others is not a human right. Since there aren't laws, generally speaking, requiring people to conform, it has nothing to do with the government.

All societies have their norms, & there will always be a price to pay for being a non-conformist. I wish that weren't true, but that's just how people are. No American adult is legally forced to have a, "normal," appearance yet, if one chooses to cover one's face with tattoos & piercings, and to sport a mohawk-style row of wound, 10-inch long, stiff palings of blue hair, spiking from their scalps, it is likely to limit that person's options in finding employment. And this same conformity principle applies in Russia & the Philippines, as well.

In America, though, there are laws against discrimination based on race, religion, gender, & sexual orientation. Are you suggesting making it illegal for people to have any individual preferences whatsoever, with regards to others?

The only way the government could eliminate this social phenomenon of expressing disapproval, would be to criminalize the voicing of one's opinion, that is, by limiting free speech & expression. Wouldn't that just be taking cancel culture a notch UP, by getting our legal system involved with the suppression?



From Wikipedia:
Cancel culture (or call-out culture) is a modern form of ostracism in which someone is thrust out of social or professional circles - either online on social media, in the real world, or both. Those who are subject to this ostracism are said to be "canceled."...Dictionary.com, in its pop-culture dictionary, defines cancel culture as "withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive."[3] The expression "cancel culture" has mostly negative connotations and is commonly used in debates on free speech and censorship.

The notion of cancel culture is a variant on the term call-out culture and constitutes a form of boycott involving an individual (usually a celebrity) who is deemed to have acted or spoken in a questionable or controversial manner.[2][4][5][6][7]

 

Your romanticisation of dictatorship as being more free is extremely disturbing. You propose that critics of the regime being executed is acceptable since it is against the law. Would you similarly believe execution for criticism of leftist policies and Democrats to be acceptable if that were the law here? Things are not right or wrong because they are the law - they are right or wrong independent of that.

Second, you posit that dictators often enjoy high popularity, yet in other posts admit criticism is punishable by death. How therefore can you really know what kind of popularity the dictator has? You propose that the citizens accept the dictator as the only good when criticism is banned, but you cannot truly know this when people are too fearful of punishment to tell you the truth.

Third, your postulation that that cancel culture is more totalitarian than the regimes you listed is completely crazy. You do not get executed by the police for speech here. You do not get assassinated by the govt. You do not get arrested for made up crimes, tortured, and if you refuse to make a sham confession, have your organs harvested. All that happens here is you might lose an opportunity to speak in a specific location. You can always take your speech somewhere else.

China in particular is the greatest enemy to freedom in the world currently. They export their censorship globally, using their economic status to demand foreign companies do not acknowledge Tawain as being independent. To not speak of their persecution of Uighurs, or Tibet. To print maps showing that they control the South China Sea, and to punish any support for the Hong Kong protests. Your life and property means nothing to the regime - they will flood your village and deny there was even a flood. They have a social credit system that will demand you be a good citizen according to the regime's standards and do not associate yourself with the designated dredges, or you will lose your ability to get loans, get jobs, travel, etc. They mass collect DNA from all citizens in certain regions. They have facial recognition cameras installed all throughout their cities so they can monitor your every action - and they are exporting this technology to other dictatorships around the world.

If you really think cancel culture is more totalitarian than China, you haven't bothered to look into China.

 

it really shouldn’t have even needed to be said, but You said it best.

 

Perhaps the best solution in USA would start with changing SOCIAL NORMS rather then Laws.

Speaking against Cancel Culture is the first step to change Social Norms.

 

Not true. I would never support that.

I believe that those who preach Progressive Totalitarian ideology should be punished according to the Laws, only where such Laws exist. I would not support any punishment over 5 years for that.

 

I apologize for getting too emotional. I would never support anything illegal.

Perhaps the best way to change Cancel Culture is to change Social Norms to a point where Diversity of Opinion is valued by most people. Perhaps Conservative businesses should help and hire those cancelled by Progressives.

 

Just because the person is doing something on their own time outside the workplace does not make their actions unaccountable. A person is accountable for all of their action even outside the work place. I believe we discussed this before and the example I used would if you were a member of a white supremacist organization or a pedophile organization like nambla, you may have broken no laws but a company could fire you for belonging too or supporting these organizations. Your actions, even outside the workplace could have negative impacts on the company, why should they pay that price for you?

I know you are going to think I avoided your question but in legal terms we have to define the boundaries. Can a workplace judge your actions outside the workplace even if they are legal YES/NO?

I don't know if you managed people or own a business but if an employee is doing something on their own time that causes your company to lose business or demoralize their fellow workers should you be able to fire them?

 

Of course if they engage in actual Hate Speech or are a Nambla member they can be fired.

But firing anyone for defending victims of abuse and discrimination is TRULY EVIL. Yet such incidents do take place in USA, Australia, Canada, UK.

 

I never said they engaged in hate speech. I said they were a member of those organizations.

Also who are these so called victims they are defending? I would guess they are not advocating saving little homeless kittens. They are probably people that the company wants no association with and thus do not want to employ people that support them.

 

If they are a member of KKK, Nambla, or a similar organisation, then they can be fired.

But firing anyone for defending victims of abuse and discrimination is TRULY EVIL. Sadly many Progressives support that.

 

Sorry, I edited my previous post while you were answering. See above.

 

For instance people have been fired for advocating for male victims of Domestic Violence.

People have been fired for advocating for Due Process.

 

Those situation do sound mild to me. Can you provide links to the people that were fired for those situations so I can see some details of the cases? Also since you know a fair bit about these cases can you answer these 2 question for me:

1. If the public believed that the company was advocating for these male victims could that result in the loss of revenue, customers or goodwill?
2. If other employees knew a fellow employee was advocating for these people would it impact the work environment negatively or the performance in the workplace?

 

Progressives believed that advocating for male victims of DV would harm female victims of DV. Progressives believed that advocating for "oppressors" harms the victims. Thus they pressured the company to fire the advocate.

The same pattern happened many times. Last case I was aware was in Australia.

 

I don't know what DV stands for and a link would really help to put a face to your cases. I am just wondering if these people are defending, so called victims, which had said or done some very offensive things? Also you did not answer my 2 questions. Like I said you understand these cases already so your judgement would be insightful. The reason I keep asking is we have seen many examples of people attempting to use cancel culture to get outcomes but there are also many examples where those campaigns do not work. The Chick Fil A, Goya canned vegetables, Disney, Harry Potter are a few that instantly come to mind. People wanted to cancel them and the campaign did not work at all. Was there a chance of this one succeeding on the company? Could the company have been impacted financially or have their reputation tarnished? And the answer to 2 IMO is even more important. I manage high performance teams and one person changing the team chemistry could cause a multi million dollar project to fail or miss deadlines.

 

DV -- Domestic Violence.

I understand that in Western World, Progressives have a legal right to pressure companies to fire those who advocate for male victims of Domestic Violence. I know several cases.

Nnevertheless, even though their actions are legal, they are TRULY EVIL. I understand that not all Progressives do so, but other Progressives are not outraged by such practice.

 

This is an example of Western Society being much more cruel then Russia, or Philippines, or any Muslim Nation. Even if people in these nations are not aware of this particular issue, they are right to keep Western influence at bay.

 

Thanks, google told me what DV stood for. I tried googling "fired for defending male victims of domestic violence" hoping to find some real life cases to review but none showed up. Maybe I will try duck duck go tomorrow. I am going to guess since you do not seem to want to answer my 2 question regarding the impact to a company for supporting the victims the result would be negative for the company in some way? So my final question for you before I go to bed is:

In your opinion how much money does a company does a company need to lose before you would fire an individual for their actions? Would you accept that individual tarnishing your company or institution's reputation? Would you be OK with disrupting the work environment and making other employees feel uncomfortable and perhaps leave or become less productive? If you were CEO at what point would you act or are you "all in" with this individual to the end?

 

Sadly American companies do put profit before Ethics. For profit, most American companies would throw victims of abuse under the bus. Sadly with current laws, nothing can be done about it.

Hopefully one day these companies will be recognised as Evil.

 

None that I know of do.