[Kednicma]

I see people complaining that he was canceled, but if it takes three and a half decades to get canceled, then I'm not sure I see the problem. If I were to write an article about how I think that women ought not to serve in the military, or any such similar drivel, then I would probably perish naturally before any punishment arrived.

Are folks here anticipating that they themselves will get canceled for their old sexist writings, or is there something else here?

[apsec112]

This sort of retroactive vindictiveness is bad for everyone. In 1987, almost no one supported gay marriage, and many people wrote articles saying so. (DOMA was enacted in 1996 under Bill Clinton.) A lot of people, perhaps a majority of Americans, have changed their minds in the light of new arguments and evidence. How willing will anyone be to change their minds, if the response is "that doesn't matter, you're fired and exiled from polite society for the rest of your life"?

"An army officer in the Qin dynasty was supposed to lead his troops somewhere but got delayed.

He asked a friend of his "What is the penalty for being late?"

"Death." Says his friend.

He then asks "What is the penalty for rebellion?"

"Death." Says his friend.

He replies "Well then..." And thus began the Dazexiang Uprising."

[Kednicma]

Well, this executive voluntarily resigned. He could have just as easily issued a statement condemning his younger self for their sexist and puerile remarks, disavowing his older views and committing himself to doing better. Plenty of folks have done just that, and found themselves growing and improving as people.

There are plenty of loud politicians that, since the 1970s, have supported gay rights; Bernie comes to mind [0]. (He also opposed DOMA [1].) Indeed, a majority of Americans, some 70%, have had to change their minds about this, but that does not mean that there were not folks back then who had reasonable moral stances about ensuring that all of us have the right to volunteer to go die for this country.

I'm not seeing what's actually bad here. Indeed I'm not even seeing what's vindictive. The wages of free speech is people reading and thinking about what you say.

[0] https://www.vox.com/2015/7/7/8905905/sanders-drugs-gay-right...

[1] https://www.vox.com/2015/9/9/9295867/bernie-sanders-gay-sold...

[apsec112]

"Well, this executive voluntarily resigned."

In this context, "voluntarily resignation" usually means "resign now, or you're fired":

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/23/business/23family.html

"He could have just as easily issued a statement condemning his younger self for their sexist and puerile remarks, disavowing his older views and committing himself to doing better."

He did do all of these things. It didn't matter, he was still fired. No forgiveness allowed.

"Plenty of folks have done just that, and found themselves growing and improving as people."

In my experience, making someone apologize and then firing them anyway rarely leads them to personal growth.

"There are plenty of loud politicians that, since the 1970s, have supported gay rights; Bernie comes to mind [0]."

I don't think even Sanders supported gay marriage in the 80s. The linked clip just says that being gay shouldn't be illegal.

"Indeed I'm not even seeing what's vindictive. The wages of free speech is people reading and thinking about what you say."

Reading, thinking, and responding to speech is good and healthy. "You are never allowed to earn a living, participate in commerce, or support your family for the rest of your life, regardless of what you do or how many times you apologize" is vindictiveness.

[Kednicma]

It sounds like you're speculating; do you have evidence that he did not voluntarily resign?

[whatshisface]

Here's the worry that I'm hearing from people:

1. I write an article or a comment that's acceptable, or even encouraged by the powerful people running the show today.

2. The powerful people get changed out for other powerful people, and they start encouraging different articles, articles very different from the ones I've been writing.

3. The new powerful people attack me for following the old powerful people, even though I'm willing to follow the new powerful people now that they're in charge.

4. I serve my time, and now that I'm out of the doghouse, the new powerful people want me to write things that agree with them. How can I feel safe doing that, when I will probably get thrown in the doghouse again once the next revolution happens?

[Kednicma]

I'm sorry to hear that, but I would ask (5) how much time have people here had to serve "in the doghouse"? How much damage have folks here taken from these "powerful people"? It seems specious and speculative.

[ClumsyPilot]

What is the threshold, how bad does the damage need to be to be worth considering?

[Kednicma]

Please, tell us your story. Hide whatever details you must.