Should pro-Hamas students be blacklisted?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 26 окт 2023
- "I want people to consider what the world would look like if you essentially have a First Amendment, but you can't have a job if you actually honestly say your political opinion," argues Greg Lukianoff as he explains why blacklisting students who support Hamas is setting a dangerous precedent.
Watch the full interview here: • Why are college kids t...
Let's remember these students will beg for mercy then have no issue having you fired from your job for having a politically incorrect opinion.
Shall such a person be granted mercy?
"These students?" A bit of an overgeneralization, no? You sure you're not projecting?
Free speech for me but not for thee.
@@Solscapes. See what happened at Oberlin.
@@JChang0114 For one, guy got 45 million dollars, not cancelled. Two, an occasional face in the woodgrains is normal when you see faces (or prejudice) everywhere. Can you name one person who got "cancelled" and didn't financially benefit from it?
@@Solscapes. They only got the money after a prolonged appeals process. At the very least, the university should have not appealed, at best I legitimately believe that the Deans of Oberlin should have committed Seppuku for their transgressions.
Countless people have been terminated for their private comments or associations and never made whole.
Did the CEO or C level executives get on their knees in the mud and apologize? No.
How about paying out triple the salary of those that were fired in BLM frenzy? Nope.
These individuals deserve mercy as much as those that ran the gas chambers at Auschwitz do.
You are free to speak your mind, but not free from the consequences of that speech. This isn't new.
That's literally the argument cancel culture advocates make. Down to the word. You're making their case. Congrats.
You aren't actually addressing the question posed by the video title. The question isn't whether people _can_ blacklist Hamas supporters; it's whether people _should_ blacklist Hamas supporters. Appealing to the current legal or social circumstances to answer the latter question is a non-sequitur.
@@mvmlego1212They support terrorists. Yea they should be blacklisted.
@@mvmlego1212 The title of the video actually says, "should," at the very beginning.
@@TheRealCoryKent -- Yeah. It's strange that even with Reason's explicit attempt to frame it as a moral debate, the commenter is writing in terms of what can happen or what what will happen.
I'm not saying they should be blacklisted in any legal sense - it's important to defend the integrity of the First Amendment even when people are using it poorly - but I definitely wouldn't hire them, personally.
Uhhhh ao you aupport genocidal israel
What if they are the best at their job?
And how does one use the First Amendment, poorly, as you put it? Does all speech that you personally disagree with come under that ridiculous umbrella term?
Seems like you would be the one understanding the First Amendment poorly if you went out of your way to not hire someone, based on their personal political, religious (insert other combative subjects here) views.
Why not go a step further and find out all the views of all your employees, find the ones that you disagree with and then fire them.
Do you see how ridiculous that sounds yet?
@@TubaTones Sounds like someone lost their job for being stupid in the workplace.
@@TubaTones Would you hire a child molestor if he was the best interviewee among a pool of candidates?
I don't care about either faction but for things like the ADL infesting as low as elementary schools - attacking anyone that asks questions - while at the same time, late night commercials begging for aid to impoverished old women; despite the billions the US gives them, claiming to be a race of the chosen people and so on.
Bottom line: It is not our, nor the worlds, responsibility to defend or fund these other countries - handle your business and let us handle ours...
Reply
Adults need to take responsibility for their decisions
That sentiment goes both ways…
@@dymechik721 and yet nobody can name someone who's been "cancelled," save people who have plenty of money and plenty of work.
Except women and minorities. Only white cis heteronormative males should have to deal with consequences of their actions or words.
That's what you could say to anyone being persecuted for his opinions.
I thought North Korean were scared but no, they are just being adult...
@@Solscapes. Justine Sacco. Unless by cancelled you mean unable to ever recover.
Not a legal black list--not a criminal, but let them face the social consequences.
The biggest problem with our higher education system is that it programs people in what to think, and not how to think. I encountered that 40+ years ago. It has only gotten far worse since.
You mean the Vietnam war? You're really trying to defend that farce useless war?
I would in WW2 never have hired a person whom openly supported the AXIS powers. I would not not now hire a person who expressed support for HAMAS or the PLO
It should be the companies right to hire who they want just like it’s their right to support or say what they want.
But you have no problem with genocidal settler illegally occupying lands. Typical and pathetic.
Don't pretend you are hiring peoples lol
Yes and no. Should they be able to say what they want? Within the First Amendment, sure. Do i have a right to know that the person im hiring is possibly a terrorist? Yeah. You can say what you want. But there are consequences to your actions. Yes, they are able to grow and change their beliefs. But, why say something if you are not willing to stand on it. Why try to hide it now?
If they are foreign students, the Constitution doesn't apply to them. They are not citizens.
Are you an anti vax anti mask anti illegal immigeation domestic terrorist. Dont want to hire you want to deprive your ability ti feed yourself because you need to stand up for what you think!
What about the terrorists that support the Isreali killing of Palestinian civilians?
Just to clarify, what you're saying is that if you support group A, you have the right too, but employers have the right to fire you because they think you might possibily assume you are associated with group B? For example, if you support Trump and an employer assumes you may be a racist, they can fire you for that?
@@mintcrisp94 Yes, that is within the law. Employers have the freedom to fire you on the basis of political beliefs, that is not covered by Anti-Discrimination bills. Most employers also have the right for firing you if you are fat and most can still fire you if you are gay.
I am absolutely pro-freedom. But I do believe when you deal with ideologues, they should be held to their own standards.
Then you are not pro freedom. You are just another authoritarian
Ok, but once you start acting out their own standards, even if its on them, then they are now also your standards.
@Jimraynor45 no, uf you generally want free speech, but people don't want to play by the same rules, you have to apply their rules them
@@Jimraynor45 What he is saying is that he wants free speech for what he believes in but not for what he opposes.
@@infinitemonkey917 You are mistaken.
What he said was ideologues should be held accountable to their own standards, which is correct and applicable to far more than speech.
One can have opposing views and not try to silence others.
If these particular ideologues are denying the free speech of others, they are the ones who then set the standard for themselves, not him.
That shouldn't even be a question on a "Libertarian" channel.
That would be a more helpful statement if you explained why. Otherwise, nobody can even give any thought to your comment at all. In its present form, it's vapid.
@@TheRealCoryKent Because of liberty, dude. The students should have free expression. Apparently, you are OK with a foreign country having such influence within the US. Most people have enough sense to figure out what I meant.
Nobody is special especially not a foreign country especially not a group of people. Freedom of speech is are right no matter who it offend or makes uncomfortable.
Uneducated one freedom of speech only applies to government.......Everyone else is not the US Federal government.
Excellent nuanced answers by your panelists! They point out that it’s less of an issue about potential employees being “right“ or “wrong“, or toeing any particular party line, but far more about tolerance and discussion.
Whether or not a kid was ignorant and hateful in college, the operative question when they’re trading their abilities for money in a company is: Can they work well with others to produce value? If they’re still intolerant ideologues at that point, they won’t be able to.
Media outlets/pundits have been touting this situation as the possible end of the woke movement (at least on campus) but I have my doubts with how dug in woke/DEI is.
Once you start blacklisting and canceling people for their opinions, the only thing that matters is who will make the decision of what is permissible and what is not.
And without freedom of speech, all other freedoms cease to hold any exists as well.
The process was started by the left years ago. Now they are getting a small taste of their own medicine. Free speech, yes! Consequences for what you say, yes!
Are you also against blacklisting NAMBLA members in school jobs? Freedom of speech doesn't mean others aren't allowed to listen to you and judge you.
freedom of speech exclude call for violence , which they actually for
Supporting terrorism should not fall under free speech. And I'm not sure it does.
We're not talking about a difference in political opinions here. We're talking about open celebrations for violence against civilians.
@@SeraphsWitness what civilians? Only Israelis? Not for the Armenians slaughtered at the hands of Israeli supplied ammunition to Azerbaijan? Lol
the point of singleing out terrorist organizations is to also blacklist their supporters. it is way above cancel culture, it is about minimizing the harm that those organizations are able to do. and yes, all those students that support terrorism will be remembered and have less opportunities in life than others.
It's consequence culture!
Employers have the right to hire people not based on race, color, sex, age, religion, or national origin.
For the past 2yrs (antifa-blm) have been forcing employers to hire based on those things like a grocery list. With the exceptions of 1 race, relgion, gender, and sexual preferences (christian,straight,white,males)
I wouldn't want to see anyone who's pro-Hamas to be denied work just for that, unless they were actively going after those who weren't (whether pro-Israel or politically neutral for whatever reason). That being said, I hold those same standards for those who would be pro-Israel but doing the same to those either neutral or pro-Hamas. If you can't be civil in your disagreement, you should keep your politics out of the office…in fact, just keep politics out of the office, PERIOD!
Short answer, Yes. Longer answer is deporting those who are holding visas
Yes. And this is the value of free speech. You are free to say whatever is on your mind but you should be aware of the consequences of supporting something absolutely heinous like terrorism
Then it's not really free speech
@@zercora you are allowed to say whatever you think. You are NOT free from any ramifications that result from it
@@JonMI6By that logic every society from the dawn of time has had "free speech". Free speech as we know it directly correlates to being able to speak one's thoughts and opinions without fear of persecution. On a personal level people are absolutely allowed to disagree with one another. What we are seeing here are billionaires and other powerful individuals using their influence to punish ordinary people for challenging the narrative. I am disappointed by the number of ReasonTV viewers who are suddenly in favor of this type of cancel culture simply because the shoe is on the other foot. This would be a great opportunity to call out liberal hypocrisy if conservatives could just be consistent in their views.
Freedom from corporate coercion is valuable for the same reasons as governmental coercion. Government coercion is (especially historically) more dangerous than corporate coercion, but that doesn't make corporate coercion right--only less severely wrong.
Why not? Their side invented cancel culture, so they should be OK with getting blacklisted.
I'm on the right and I cannot stand Israel. Lol, I didn't invent anything.
True, but you gotta be better than their side otherwise what’s the point.
@@nobodysfool2232ah yes, let's be better with the side that wants you dead. Before you say it, wanting someone to be blacklisted to the point they can't work to feed themselves or their families is wanting someone to die or go and become a criminal to survive.
Only when the roles reverse are there calls to be a better person. Let them live by their own rules. Maybe they will understand the consequences of their actions for once.
What are you talking about? Right wing snowflakes cancelled the Dixie Chicks after they criticized George W Bush.
Nobody should be "blacklisted", it's like virtual mob stoning, and morally repugnant. Humanity invented the legal system for a reason.
Exactly. It's easy to spot those who are truly supporters of freedom and justice in times like this. If you're not willing to stand up for the people you disagree with, you don't really support freedom of speech and you're not anti-mob justice.
Exactly, we as Americans condemn other nations for this behavior, but somehow it is okay when we do it and then have the audacity to say America is the freest nation on Earth. Also, it is wrong to associate anyone who is pro Palestine is somehow automatically pro Hamas. Let's not forget it was Israel that helped create Hamas.
@@nomoreserfs Not to mention Israel that has assassinated not only Palestinian leaders looking for peace, but their own elected officials. It's clear who wants genocide here and who's fighting for their survival, Hamas are extremists without a doubt but I'd challenge anyone to live under the conditions of occupation and a land sea and air blockade and not become extreme.
@@mintcrisp94 Right on brother! You're 100% correct. The sad part is that the Christian Zionist of America are so mind warped that they will support a Zionist bombing of a population that is 35% Christian while looking the other way when the Zionist have utter contempt for Christianity itself. Truly bizarre.
You cannot tollerate people who are enemies of the culture your country is founded on.
Would you hire someone who actively seeks to destroy your company?
Reap what you sow.
I wouldn’t hire them.
A lot people won't and this isn't about cancel theory, just about personal and professional preference.
And just by their decision, they limited their number of potentional employers and just by that they have lowered their average salaries for life. Pretty stupid decision but also a pretty obvious one to have been possible to forsee on their part.
Cancel Culture is when you try to actively sabotage somebodies reputation. It isn't the sum of individual prefences. Nobody has sabotaged their reputation. They did it all by themselves.
Whether I would hire them depends on whether they can keep their politics away from their job duties.
I think there's a difference between a business owner deciding of their own accord not to hire people with certain beliefs (wokeism, pro-hamas, kkk, Islamism - I wouldn't hire any of these people) and bowing to mob pressure over some silly crap or some very old tweet.
They should have no problem living in the world they created. We who opposed cancel culture should swallow our principles and force them to know what it’s like to be on the other side of the problem they invented.
Hahaha, swallow your principles. "Oh, my, I really hate having to participate in cancel culture that I've always opposes but now that it's coincidentally on an issue I'm on the other side of I guess I just have to give in."
@@BDnevernind I was torn when I wrote it. But how do you take the moral high-ground when the enemy will use it to bludgeon you with.
Saw this the other day and it's appropriate here:
If Palestine said today "we'll lay down our guns - we want peace", there would be peace. If Israel said it, Palestine, Iran, Syria, Egypt, Saudi Arabia would eliminate Israel.
It's hard not to engage in war when one side doesn't want a peaceful solution. The left wants to destroy the right, that's why they invented this particular weapon. Not upping the ante and using the same weapon just makes us out to be victims.
@@MichaelGreen831 I can't imagine going through life with your mindset. Everything is just civil war to you? And you shed principle at the first chance to own your enemy? And you don't even care that only some and not all of the pro-Palestine people are even leftists rather than just humanitarians sickened by collective punishment of children for crimes they have nothing to do with, and only a portion of those even advocate or participate in cancel culture in the first place? And you see no irony in turning a collective punishment tactic of blacklisting on them all for use of speech because some of them might have done that to you on whatever issue you're passionate about?
Also I'm sorry but it is absolutely untrue that if Palestinians lay down their arms there would be peace. That is utterly ahistorical. Before the 90s they had virtually no guns or bombs at all, and the First Intifada took place in the 80s, was largely nonviolent, and led to significant loss of Palestinian land. Every time they put their arms down Zionists take more land. That's not peace, my friend. This is a conflict over land and only one side is expanding its claim on land, and there is no reason to believe the Zionists will stop if the violence does. This explains the West Bank where hundreds have died in the last few weeks despite basically no armed resistance to speak of. You need to study more about the situation.
But if you are of the Right and convinced that the Left is out to annihilate you, this will likely fall on deaf ears, and I feel sorry for the way you are living in such fear that you would advocate using weapons that violate your principles. (I say the same to leftists who advocate cancelation etc over speech, because it wasn't long ago that all of the Left was defined by free speech advocacy, a la Chomsky.) But I have to be honest, when you do that, it seems much more like your principles were just a convenient defense and not actually principles at all, just like the other side. I wish you well. And I hope you stop and ponder this some more.
@@MichaelGreen831 Palestine was willing to make peace many times actually. Israelis assassinated their own leader and a Palestinian leader both times peace was an option. Now that Israeli controls the land and plans to annex the West Bank, they pretend they're the ones who are looking for peace. The Palestinians have had everything stolen from them and now peace just means to quietly accept a slow annexation (As us currently happening in the West Bank) and then becoming second class citizens (Israel doesn't give none Jews the right to vote and carefully controls Palestinians movement.)
The question I would raise to Greg is this: Is there absolutely no political opinion that would justify employers shunning an potential employee? Pro-slavery? Pro-Nazis? And a related question: can we truly not distinguish between someone being "cancelled" for supporting/condoning the mass slaughter of non-combatants and, for example, someone being "cancelled" because they believe that there are only two sexes?
Thank you! These people are painting with broad strokes to cling to their own utopic beliefs.
Being overt and out about supporting genocide is not the same as being overt and out about gun rights.
@@r.t.hannah9575 These aren't broad strokes. You're assuming that support for Palestine is the same as supporting genocide, the same way people who dislike guns are assuming people support school shootings. There's nothing wrong with supporting peoples fight to regain stolen land, the same way there's nothing wrong with supporting gun rights to defend yourself.
Firing and blacklisting these people because you disagree with them is undermining the very foundations of democracy and free speech. If they control your livelihood, they control the country.
_Is there absolutely no political opinion that would justify employers shunning an potential employee?_
I can't speak for Nick, but my answer is "yes". I support time, place, and manner restrictions on employees' political speech, but not content restrictions.
Put another way: I would be willing to keep my employee's political views separate from their employment as long as the employee did the same. For example:
- Don't pick fights with other employees over politics
- Don't use the employer's resources to engage in politics
- Don't present your political views as if they're the employer's
If an employee followed the spirit of those rules, then I would not fire them, even if their political views were reprehensible.
@@mvmlego1212 Really? You don't think that there are some political opinions so f**ked up that they are not strong indicia of an individual with which I would not want to work nor to which I would not want to expose my other employees.
@@rogerbarris8605 -- Evidence of extreme political opinions would be enough for me to question (literally ask questions about) the applicant's tolerance for other beliefs. I think I'd be able to weed out the problematic ones based on their responses, since self-righteous extremists aren't good at hiding their attitudes.
As a business owner, I would never hire a pro-nazi person. So of course I wouldn’t hire a pro-Hamas person. Seems pretty basic and non controversial to me.
As someone who is whole-heartedly opposed to Hamas and what it stands for, my answer to this question is summed in a single word; "no."
I don’t want them from my doctor, my accountant, my plumber, nothing. The question begs: when will they turn on us?
I feel sorry for their ignorance, lack of critical thinking, and might want to stay away from them when they hot headed, but still we should do something to educate them and encourage them to think through.
The saying goes “ you can take a horse to water but you can’t make him drink,”. This “education” will only cost the taxpayer more money and will fall on deaf ears. They already want me to pay for their poor degree choices.
You lack critical thinking, as you parrot whatever the mainstream media tells you to say and think.
@@miniliebenberg9644You seem to think OP is recommending reeducation camps. But you're only opposed because of cost. Maybe stop and do a rethink.
lol what type of “education” would you give them? You know about the issue
While I prefer a hands off approach when it come to companies usually, allowing companies to shape public opinion is bad. If people have to regulate their speech to get the jobs they are good at, then
1) people will not organize themselves efficiently.
2) or people will censor themselves which stifles free thinking
If businesses cant discriminate based on race, sex, etc., then they shouldnt discriminate against viewpoints. At least that would be consistent.
So should a company be forced to hire pedophiles? Ie NAMBLA members?
no but they should be charged for any and all crimes committed
They have the right to say what they want, and other people have the right to know what they say and choose not to associate with them for it.
No one should be blacklisted in a free society. As the saying goes, "I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It."
Blacklisting is fine as long as it's not a government-enforced mechanic -- private individuals should be free to choose who they do and do not associate with. Freedom of association also includes freedom of non-association.
@@valcaron Of course I'm not referring to what individuals do with their own privately-owned platforms/businesses. But as we've learned recently with "privately" owned platforms like this one, F-book, Twitter, etc. - there was no shortage of behind-the-scenes pressure (and possibly even outright coercion) to remove content and blacklist people coming from the federal government.
As long as the blacklists are personal, not backed by police power, why not? Freedom to associate and disassociate.
As Milton Friedman argued before, let the racists and sexists discriminate as they would. They're cutting down their pool of employees, customers, friends, family. See how that works for them.
This generation is going to vote in a social credit system. I'm genuinely terrified for the future. No one should be forced to be Pro Israel.
Yes. Idk about you but i wouldn’t want to work with a terrorist supporter
They veered wildly off topic, the actual content connected with the title is like a min long
I think there's a major difference between Pro-Hamas students and Pro-Free Palestine students. Pro Hamas are openly supporting a terrorist group and could be considered a workplace safety issue. People in favor of a two state solution with Palestine and Israel is completely different.
exactly. im mostly right wing but i know that neither side is the blameless victim here. israel has been treating these groups badly for decades and then wonders why they revolt so harshly, and hamas is literally using civilian target tactics as their main approach.
'' Palestinian Had NO OTHER OPTION - Norman Finkelstein ''
@@sovietunion7643 Israel treats them badly by simply existing, in their eyes. Btw, that applies to all of us: every non-muslim on earth.
And when pro-trans advocates call for cancellation because it's a workplace safety issue, where do you stand?
I want to agree but it’s so hard as these were the same people saying you should be fired if you voted for trump. Now we want to take the principled stance?
That's what makes it a principled stance.
@@ethanhandel1001 I agree, it just seems like we’re playing by the rules, and they are just doing what’s best for “their side”
@@509drone2 And that's why I would say we have principles where they generally do not.
You don't get credit for your principles if it takes no sacrifice on your part to stand up for them.
Yes, because you have the freedom to not blacklist them, the others should have the freedom to blacklist them.
My buddy self-taught himself computer system security and ended up as a contractor working 9n the space shuttle program. No degree needed. He currently makes close to 200k
It all depends what you mean by "blacklisted". Should I be telling a company that they should or should not hire them? No.
Why not? It's entirely within your freedom of speech to make arguments to other entities why they should or should not associate with other entities.
@valcaron just because I can doesn't mean I should. What I can do is say "I won't be doing business with you as long as that person works here" if it REALLY bothers me.
If you can be blacklisted for one political view
Anyone can be blacklisted for any political view
freedom of association
I can't way what others do
but I personally wouldn't associate with them
Yuri Bezmenov does a good job explaining subversion tactics of hostile governments. How authoritarian countries like Japan protect their borders to the extent where material designed to attack the government/culture never even make it in.
The West is very weak to these attacks because of freedom of speech and lax borders. But Yuri never talks about how our bloated government is what allows subversion to work regardless.
Historically, we had authoritarian governments. Then we wanted more power for the citizen so we made democracies. Then we realized governments and people were authoritarian anyways, so we enshrined human rights within a republic. But we are STILL battling authoritarian overreach.
The next step is to severely limit what the government can do. Like denying the government the ability to print money, to go into debt, to enact laws that never sunset, to fully regulate industry practice (which will lead to socialization) etc.
Is the UK parliament not a terrorist organization?
Okay, these people side stepped the actual question so hard it’s sad… there’s a difference between “cancelling” someone for their politics and cancelling them for LITERALLY celebrating the targeted extermination of children and families in their homes.
That wasn't the question, though. Your conflation between being "pro-Hamas" (as per the title) and "celebrating the targeted extermination of children and families in their homes" exemplifies the danger of cancel culture.
Somebody who describes themselves as being "pro-Hamas" doesn't necessarily support the "extermination of children". The person could mean that they support most of Hamas's actions, or that they support the Gaza Strip's independence from Israel.
Additionally, they could disagree with the equivalence on empirical grounds (e.g. they would abhor killing children, but they don't believe Hamas is killing children).
Most worryingly, the cancellation of pro-Hamas people could be weaponized by applying that label to people in order to get them cancelled, much like how the term "hate group" has been used by the SPLC.
reply
NOW NOW NOW
@@mvmlego1212 Stop splitting hairs. I’m not interested in your pseudo-intellectual banter and semantics.
Saying Im pro-Nazi, is enough for me to assume you want to gas Jews. Being a holocaust denier is no different than denying the atrocities on Oct 7th.
@@mvmlego1212 If you actually say you are "Pro-Hamas" and not just "Pro-Palestinian", you are supporting the terrorists and their actions (murder and killing). That would be like someone in WWII saying they were pro-Nazi but against what they did in the concentration camps to the Jews.
If you were a client at a law or investment firm that hired the "students" who are passionate about stopping supporters of Israel, who was Jewish or a supporter of Israel, could you trust the employees of that firm to act in your best interest? These students have shown who they are and what they support.
Perhaps the companies should hire these students, but their clients should be far more discerning given the money or legal implications of having a malevolent associate in that firm.
This is an interesting point. I believe that the company should be willing to consider the person, but if they'd need to babysit the employee to ensure that their intolerant views don't cause problems, then the financial burden of that supervision should also be a factor in the hiring decision.
I think one thing he did not consider is for example for the case of starbucks… Starbucks workers union, completely distinct from the company, openly supported Hammas and the Oct 7 terror attack and people boycotted Starbucks despite the fact that the company fighting with the union for a few years now and distinguishes itself from the Union… the association alone is causing Starbucks to lose money, all because of the opinions that some workers hold
All this talk about "cancel culture", and it never occurred to me that "blacklisting", which has been around for 100 years or so, is the same thing, pretty much. Part of the reason I don't like new words --- they hide the fact that they are symbols for old concepts. Believe it or not, it IS possible to learn from the past.
Blacklisting is an example of cancel culture, but it's not the extent of it. By and large, though, I agree with your point that neologisms tend to obscure the lessons that we could learn from history.
Can’t play by the rules when your adversaries do not have any rules. You’re not gonna win until you level the playing field.
Should students who openly support the kkk or isis be blacklisted?
The question goes beyond free speech; it's one of workplace safety and national security.
It's not even that. Most are trying to say that they didn't know what the statement or support of actually said. So in it's basic form they are just idiots and didn't bother reading or asking before signing something. A lot of them are ivy league students. I know people without college degrees that don't sign anything without reading it. So it's just a basic business decision to not hire idiots to work at your company.
I hate cancel culture but a potential employer has a right to take this behavior into consideration.
I don't care about either faction but for things like the ADL infesting as low as elementary schools - attacking anyone that asks questions - while at the same time, late night commercials begging for aid to impoverished old women; despite the billions the US gives them, claiming to be a race of the chosen people and so on.
Bottom line: It is not our, nor the worlds, responsibility to defend or fund these other countries - handle your business and let us handle ours...
I don't want another round of McCarthyism, but he wasn't wrong about the dangers of socialism.
Maybe McCarthyism lite?
What was wrong with McCarthyism? Communists absolutely were infiltrating the US government, and McCarthy was morally correct to call this out and have it investigated.
Libertarians upvoting calls for McCarthyism. Wow.
@@BDnevernind I'm not a lolbertarian.
@@valcaron Just an authoritarian?
@@BDnevernind What's authoritarian about voluntarily choosing not to associate with people who hold odious values?
Blacklisted? No
Known for supporting terrorists? Yes.
Its not cancel culture if they are supporting what many consider a terrorist group , myself i think they should just be expelled
Why is this even a question?
No one who is actually in a position to have any control over the matter is saying "They Can Never Work." BUT, certain Wall Street Bankers HAVE, INDEED, said "They Will NEVER work HERE." Which is their absolute right equal to the absolute right of those outspoken 'students' to say unbelievably STUPID things.
Consider this hypothetical: An individual posts comments promoting (Fill in the blank with the most heinous crime you can imagine). Would YOU hire that individual to work for YOUR company? Would you want such an individual to be THE FACE of YOUR COMPANY?
Yes, for being anti-White and not for being anti-Israel
Inciting genocide is not protected speech. Inciting violence is not protected speech.
Free speech does not mean consequence-free speech.
According to Glenn Greenwald, who is a constitutional lawyer, calling for genocide is protected speech.
@saml8967 OK, I'll buy that. But people who do this are subject to societal consequences such as shunning, loss of job, and dismissal from a school. The US government can revoke a visa and deport a non-citizen for doing this.
Let their involvement be memorialized in records. Others can interpret character as they see fit later. Accountability and consequences are a prelude of being an adult in a civilized society. May the check writers decide for themselves. Do you want to attract money or repel?
No. That would be a violation of their 1st Amendment rights. Instead, those who make pro - vaccine ads should be blacklisted on social media, if it is found that these ads are harmful. If somebody manufactures an ad which says that a recently made vaccine is safe, and only supports one side of the argument favouring the distribution of that vaccine, that person should not be allowed to use social media sites like Bitchute, etc. Even if RUclips did treat them like that it would result in court cases and the treatment would be declared unconstitutional, similar to the treatment that antivaxxers were given. If a Hamas supporter chooses to go as far as supporting terrorism then that is not protected by the 1st Amendment, because that is violence.
Should? They already are!
Private Companies are perfectly entitled to black list
If you believe white supremacist and other hateful individuals should be blacklisted then yes. If not, then no.
It's liability, imagine being blackmailed in a high up company due to this shit decades from now
These are the same people that want you cancelled for your beliefs..
Should they be blacklisted? Depends. By private sector, yes. By government, no.
The 1st amendment only apply to government. Private sector may do whatever they want as long as it's not criminal. The lost or gain of private sector players from blacklisting certain part of population will be determined by the invisible hand of the market. The government is for certain extent, immune to the invisible hand of the market.
The concept of canceling people that have views you don’t like must end. People have a right in the USA to their opinion.
Yes, but there's a difference between the right to speak their opinion, and an entitlement to have your opinion appreciated and not bear the social, not legal, consequences of holding and speaking one's opinion. It's the complete possibility of me respecting your right to have an opinion, and me not respecting your opinion anyway. One has the right to be stupid, but not demand respect anyway.
Yeah… the answer is a common sense yes. If you support a genocidal terrorist group you shouldn’t be given any degree of power.
No. Next question
Yes. Next question.
No, we should never hold ideological fascist to their own standards.
Being pro Palestine doesn't mean pro terrorism.
It does when you chase Jewish students to a library and they are forced to pock the doors
@@assault410🙄
Yep.
We’ve had to put up with leftwing cancel culture for years now. It’s not like the left is going to stop canceling people. I cheer today’s canceling of these cancel culture elitists.😂😂😂
Pro Hamas and pro Palestinian are not synonomous. The short answer is NO IF we value living in a free society that values individual liberty. Blacklisting is what we accused the Nazis of doing, yet act like a Nazi and blacklist people since it is okay when we do it. The hypocrisy is over the top.
Of course, like in Indonesia if you anti pancasila, you should not live in indonesia, the same thing on usa.
Blacklisted? No. But do you want to hire a person with such bad judgement? Maybe it's good to hire them if they show how easily they can be indoctrinated.
Yes
Yes blacklisted, puicly shamed, then exiled from the country.
YEEEESSSSSS...and charged with the crime of high ignorance
Only if all of a sudden conservatives love the ADL for some reason
Someone should tell this guy there’s a plethora of gender studies and similar useless degrees graduates.
Yes censor,blacklist,exile
I really like their answers
In that regard, nearly everyone in israels military & Netanyahu's cabinet should be blacklisted for cofounding and funding hamas. Yes hamas is a terrible insrugency turned terrorist org, but israel knows where the leadership is since it was founded (qatar).
I as a feminist dance theory major am offended!
No seriously, "Feminist dance theory" is just a shorthand for all the useless and pure-propaganda majors
They should be deported or transferred to gaza immediately
it's funny to watch the mythical American libertarianism come undone at the touch of Bibi's finger 😅
I'm a strong libertarian, but I'm so sick of these mythical libertarians. It's always "freedom as long as it benefits me!". Being a true libertarian is the hardest ideology to stick too, because half of your own party are just using it opportunistically. These same people who cry to shut down Palestine supporters while pretending to be libertarian would easily ask the government to take guns away from the people they disagree with and support an authoritarian view of liberty.
@@mintcrisp94 -- I think your specific example is wrong, but I agree with your principle. It's not "these same people"; different people are prone to being authoritarian in different ways. Progressives and conservatives wouldn't be distinct groups of people, otherwise.
@@mvmlego1212 I agree that they are different, but I maintain that all who support authoritarianism end up in the same place. Conservatives may say they support gun rights, but I'm certain if we asked the average conservative how they feel about the government restricting gun rights for anyone who vote democratic you'd see a large portion justifying it by saying "Give them taste of their own medicine".
You'll have outliers of course, however it's incredibly rarer these days to find people who are willing to follow through with the old saying "I disagree with what you're saying, but I support your right to say it."
This situation has seriously challenged my libertarian leanings about privacy and data protection. In these issues, I find myself GLAD we live in times where everything is recorded and database for data farming later. People like this NEED to be identified and publicly searchable, and that is only possible using platforms where they self-identify their 'values' and put them on display for all to see. This information should be saved and publicly available forever, we need to know who are neighbors are and our coworkers.
FREE PALESTINE
You could become another target of the state if you store all that information
@@tseriesbad6746 The state, or at least corporations married to the state, are already storing all this info. None of it is anonymous and none of it is deleted. I suppose that is the point I was trying to get at, that always bothered me but with the most recient craziness I am kinda glad it exists because this kind of crazy should not be allowed to drift back into the shadows like another type of mass mania some 90 years ago.
Blacklisted? No.
No "thought police", thank you.
And the term "accountability culture" is "Newspeak" (propagandistic language that is characterized by euphemism, circumlocution, and the inversion of customary meanings, a term coined by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty-four.
Actually, "cancel culture" is Newspeak. "Accountability culture" is New Newspeak.
The reason you can tell Nick is a libertarian is he loves to crap on someone else's point over a technicality
Disgusting that you’re even contemplating such a question. Nobody should be blacklisted for political beliefs, even if they’re annoyingly absurd.
Duh! How come hate crimes and misinformation claims only apply to conservatives. Learn actual history about Arafat!
Feminist dance theory??? 😂😂😂😂😂