Wow she resigned. Doesn't sound like she was canceled. Does the NYT have a hostile work environment? I don't know. But getting told your views are bad on Twitter by your coworkers and the NYT not firing them for that is not a hostile work environment. It's what you get with a cushy writing job writing dumb think pieces about how oppressed conservatives are in a liberal paper that uncritically published them.
I think we as a society need to reevaluate what constitutes cruel and unusual. And the way people justify all this cruelty because they "broke the law" shows that they have entirely lost all empathy. America has effectively dehumanized the idea of being a criminal, no matter how trivial or dumb the law is, to the point where anything is justified, including slavery of those people.
I disagree. It's not about her ignoring her obligation for doing her schoolwork, it's about her not following the court's order.
Law may be harsh and fair in the same time. Being ordered to do her homework was a weak sanction, she ignored it, so she needs a stronger stimulus. So law isn't dumb, it's just consistent.
You should read the article. In short, she didn't actually ignore the court's order to meet her academic obligations.
A law could be harsh, but fair, sure. However, an excessively harsh law is not fair, nor is an inconsistently-enforced one. This situation ticks both of those boxes.
> Being ordered to do her homework was a weak sanction, she ignored it, so she needs a stronger stimulus.
This simple-minded, old-fashioned line of thinking is out of touch with contemporary scholarship and a major contributor to the US criminal justice system's inefficacy.
None of these papers ever give a solution such as removing right to work. It seems like they're just asking to be able to say things free from criticism. Also cancel culture has been used for years to suppress people on the left. Now that we've realized that the other side has the really objectionable views they're being "canceled".
> It seems like they're just asking to be able to say things free from criticism.
It's not just criticism. It's massive-scale deplatforming, it's people being doxed and fired from their jobs for perceived slights.
> Now that we've realized that the other side has the really objectionable views
Says you. And you may go ahead and say it! And we can argue, and have a good productive conversation about it, as long as I'm allowed to continue posting here. The problem is that it is this key right to true freedom of speech - even when it offends, even when it makes people mad - that the right still believes in, and the left has abandoned, in a mad deference to corporate private property that actually ought to be ideological anathema.
Even here on HN there are people who are running sophisticated algorithms to analyze everyone's posts and out anyone who has the scent of wrongthink about them.
> Also cancel culture has been used for years to suppress people on the left.
So that justifies it? I'd like to see some examples, but I'll take your word for it for sake of argument - there's no reason I'd automatically be aware of it happening, after all. Shouldn't this result in people who are interested in freedom of speech on both sides finding common cause against corporations and governments that would restrict us?
The US government failed on many fronts, but the main one is testing. I think that people misunderstood the point of the lockdowns, possibly due to bad marketing from the flatten the curve people. The truth is that without a vaccine reopening would always spike cases, but a robust testing system, with possibly maybe 10x the number of daily tests, would allow us to remove contagious individuals from public and flatten the curve while reopening. Without testing we do have to choose lockdown or hospital overload, but we can still boost testing. The lockdown was like telling your kid a task would take ten minutes, and they would be in timeout until they completed it. If they choose not to do the task, you don't just let them out. Governors can have all the plans they want, but telling them all to come up with their own testing plan without federal use of the DPA is ludicrous.
Our tests per Capita don't seem to be behind other countries. It seems to me the "more testing needed" rhetoric is similar to the "we start dieing like flys in three weeks" position.
Just triple tests another tenfold and we will be fine? It ignores reality.
Debates are usually dumb performances done for the sake of convincing the audience using as many rhetorical tricks as possible to make themselves look like winners and that therefore their idea has won in the marketplace of ideas. A better system would have the two scientists discuss privately and then come forward with a joint statement either reconciling their views, or stating they are unreconcilable
This is a debate in the broad sense of scientific debate. Both parties wrote their own piece separately (without knowledge of what the other was saying) and submitted them. They have now been published and both parties will now be able to respond to what the other party has said in their initial piece, and the process will possibly continue from there for more rounds. So it's similar to the 'to and fro' of scientific debate in published papers.
The problem with this is that a policeman with a billy club who beats you because you're recording him doesn't care about your rights and not get fired. So be careful out there
> The problem with this is that a policeman with a billy club who beats you because you're recording him doesn't care about your rights and not get fired. So be careful out there
I had this discussion with many Americans: "What makes a constitutionally protected right to bear arms work, without a constitutionally protected right to use them?"
Believe it or not, in most states you do indeed have the right to self-defense against the police.[0] If the police are acting with excessive force, likely to cause great physical harm, you are within your rights to choose to fight back (notwithstanding the fact that this will probably get you killed). This principle was a big part of Randy Weaver’s successful defense after the Ruby Ridge stand-off.
I guess I should have been more clear: real-time but not live or automatically published. If it's automatically published then many people may be reticent to begin recording. For example, maybe you don't want the fact that your friend or family member is being arrested to immediately become public knowledge or otherwise shared, embarrassing video and all.[1][2] If in the end there's no police misconduct, the whole incident can remain relatively private. Yet if it turns out you're recording misconduct then it would be important that the footage be uploaded in real-time in case the cop (or anybody else) destroys your phone.
FWIW, I abstain from Facebook, Twitter, and social media in general. Apologies if Facebook Live or any other suggestion does support this.
[1] I'm white but grew up in home environments where the police were called many times, sometimes hauling someone away kicking and screaming. (Typical unintended consequence of alcohol abuse and otherwise bad life decisions, albeit all too common life decisions in poor America.) You have to be sensitive to such situations, especially in the modern electronic era where it's extremely difficult to escape past mistakes.
[2] The arrest could have been mistaken, in which case you definitely don't want a video of it getting out unless there was actual police misconduct or possibly even if there was police misconduct.
In Portland OR over the weekend, I witnessed this first hand. It wasn't even random people, it was press, with press badges. Beaten with a riot stick, and maced, multiple times. After he was beaten and maced he started limping away, the officer raised the mace, then hit him in the back a couple of times till the reporter turned around, then maced him full in the face. You can see the first hand and CCTV footage on Cory Elia's Twitter account, @TheRealCoryElia. He's also a news journalism professor at Portland Public University I believe.
Maybe because the power they get from beating people without accountability is one of the perks of their jobs. They're super power hungry and know that even the slightest amount of oversight will show that the breadth of corruption is much deeper than anyone though
