[LocalH]

There should honestly be room for both. I bemoan the modern sanitization of every single corner of the internet. Remember what they used to say about TV? "If you don't like it, don't watch it". If you don't like it, don't view the site.

People should be empowered to say something about things. But in the vast majority of situation where no actual law is being violated, they really shouldn't be empowered to do anything about it. Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why are so many people today willing to throw freedom of speech out the window?

[nkrisc]

You're free to engage in as much "locker-room" talk as you like. But I think more people are raising is simply in bad taste and often just cruel. Yeah, it's just speech and no one is harmed by it, but myself and are choosing we don't want to partake in it or give it the time of day. So go ahead, do it, but if I hear you doing it I'm going to think a lot less of you as a result. Your speech is free, just not free of consequences.

It's just unkind and there's not really any reason for it.

[dkersten]

There's a difference between calling someone out for something untasteful and actively trying to ruin their careers, marriages and lives over it.

[maxehmookau]

Strangers on the internet can't ruin marriages and careers alone. They can, however, shine light on things that might end a marriage, or a career.

My wife wouldn't divorce me if a random stranger on the internet accused me of something terrible. If I did do something terrible, then she might want to divorce me.

My employer wouldn't dismiss me if a random stranger accused me of something terrible. If I did do something terrible, then they might no longer want to be associated with me.

That seems entirely reasonable.

[dkersten]

The problem is that these witch hunts are often not proportional to the alleged "crime", take the offense completely out of context and in some cases even ruin the lives of people who were innocent. The problem with the lynch mob is you don't get a fair trial. You get punished for whatever the mob says you did, regardless of what the truth actually is. Often what actually happened is blown out of proportion and sometimes its fabricated. Even when true, the "crime" often does not fit the punishment of harassment and "cancel culture".

If I make a dumb racist or sexist joke, I should be told "hey dude, fuck off, that's not cool", not have people calling my employer to tell them how terrible I am, harassing my friends and family or sending me death threats.

> My wife wouldn't divorce me if a random stranger on the internet accused me of something terrible. ... My employer wouldn't dismiss me if a random stranger accused me of something terrible.

What if a thousand random strangers harassed you, her, your employer, your family and your friends with all kinds of accusations and death threats? Its not even that your wife or employer believes the mob, but that the stress and pressure becomes too much for them.

What if you made a single distasteful joke on twitter and instead of a few people telling you hey, that wasn't cool at all, instead you find tens of thousands of people harassing you and everyone you know? This happened to Justine Sacco. She made a very stupid and distasteful joke on twitter, to her 170 twitter followers. It got picked up by a journalist and thousands of people piled on to her. She lost her job because her employer didn't want to be associated with the press caused by the mob. According to interviews she suffered from anxiety and mental health issues for a long time after. Yes her comment on twitter was distasteful and racist, but it wasn't so bad as to warrant everything that happened to her. I've heard of such bully campaigns that lead to the targets suicide and it wasn't even clear if they were guilty of what they were accused of or not (but even if they were, their death is entirely too far!)

That doesn't seem reasonable to me at all. Quite frankly, I find it shocking how many people are not just ok with but also in support of these modern day witch hunts.

[maxehmookau]

I don't know the individual story, but for me it sounds like a line was crossed.

> Yes her comment on twitter was distasteful and racist

Racism isn't acceptable in any form. If I make a racist comment, I wouldn't be surprised if my employer dismissed me.

I agree, trial by mob isn't acceptable, neither are death threats, and I agree that it's more common and that it shouldn't happen. (To avoid this personally, I don't use Facebook or Twitter) But if I make a racist statement, in public (because social media is public) then I won't be surprised if people start thinking of me differently and I won't be surprised if my employer decides to get rid of me.

[dkersten]

The point is the statement wasn't good -- it was definitely in bad taste -- but I hear people make worse ones over drinks or whatever all the time. The correct response when it happens is to call them out and tell them to cut it out, that its not ok.

Getting someone fired over an off-the-cuff stupid joke is crazy. Getting a lynch mob to literally attempt to destroy someones life over a stupid joke is much much worse than the joke itself, no matter how sexist or racist it may be.

Besides, you don't change people by attacking them.

> I don't know the individual story

The specific story isn't really relevant, although you can look it up to see the context. The point is that the reaction is completely out of proportion with the "crime" and when someone loses everything over something as stupid as a joke, you either radicalise them or you push them to anxiety, depression and sometimes suicide. That is never ok no matter how racist or sexist you were.

> I won't be surprised if my employer decides to get rid of me.

Have you never said anything that you later regretted? I've certainly made jokes I wish I hadn't. She posted it to her 170 twitter followers, stupid sure, but how was she to know someone would pass it on to a journalist with hundreds of thousands of followers who would then spread it and complain to her employer?

I mean, sure, its dumb to assume anything you post online won't get spread and come back to you, but that's a separate issue.

Besides, it looked to me that the employer fired her because thousands of faceless "internet activists" demanded it, not because they themselves deemed the tweet was a fire-able offense.

Remember, this conversation is based off my statement above:

> There's a difference between calling someone out for something untasteful and actively trying to ruin their careers, marriages and lives over it.

By all means, call peoples bad behavior out! But don't go out of your way to try to ruin their lives. That is all I am arguing for.

[anon4242]

> I don't know the individual story, but for me it sounds like a line was crossed.

I do recommend that you read (google her name and it should come up) it because it is very informative just how destructive these internet mobs can be.

Interestingly enough, she said her post was sarcasm to highlight racism and thought her 170 followers knew her well enough to understand that.

[truculent]

> People should be empowered to say something about things. But in the vast majority of situation where no actual law is being violated

That's exactly what's happening in this thread. People are discussing this website, sharing criticisms ("saying things" as you put it). Nobody is advocating for legal action, nobody is suppressing the author's speech.

> If you don't like it, don't view the site.

Sure! But someone posted it here for viewing and discussion. Should the comments only be for sympathetic discussion? What about freedom of speech!

[LocalH]

I was specifically responding to the part of the post where they referenced doing something about it:

>This was never "simply funny" to a lot of people, they just weren't empowered to say or do anything about it. Thankfully, things are changing.

[maxehmookau]

> I bemoan the modern sanitization of every single corner of the internet.

There's plenty of corners of the internet that are anything but sanitized and will resist any form of sanitization. It's occupiers will probably choose that particular hill to die on too. 4chan would be a good (if you can use that word...) example.

> Whatever happened to freedom of speech? Why are so many people today willing to throw freedom of speech out the window?

Freedom of speech still exists. Case-in-point, the website in question still exists no matter how uncomfortable it makes me personally. Freedom of speech does not protect anybody from the consequences of that freedom.

People are much less tolerant of speech that offends them. I think this is a good thing, because many minorities were already often offended before but lacked the power to speak up. What you're seeing now isn't the erosion of freedom of speech, but the strengthening of it in the face of robust and diverse views.

[JKCalhoun]

Agree, but perhaps OP is bemoaning that some of the more tame stuff (like the Britney Spears bit) is being vilified. I mean, when you talk about "corners of the internet that are anything but sanitized" we all know how low and demeaning that can be.

I worry that this trend is polarizing — forcing us to two extremes.

[rsynnott]

... Wait, no-one's suggesting banning this, just saying that it is bad. Nothing to do with freedom of speech.