People don't get cancelled for expressing any political views, they get cancelled for expressing political views outside the Overton Window. Despite what social media may suggest, cheering the murder of anyone who's not a murderer or war criminal themselves is still taboo (social media is a heavily distorted reflection of reality similar in some ways to reality TV). Consider that nobody has been fired from their job for expressing sympathy towards Charlie Kirk (or Melissa Hortman or Brian Thompson).
Although the Overton Window shifts, traditional opinions are still protected by numbers. You're highly unlikely to be fired or ostracized because of something you posted 10 years ago if some of your bosses, colleagues, and neighbors have posted similar things. Most people admire the founding fathers today even though they owned slaves, while those same people condemn slavery and directly acknowledge the founding fathers were immoral in that regard; because they accept that in their time it was normal, and they were selfless relative to others in their demographic.
Furthermore, social media is not a dark forest, as the author alludes to: many people frequently post controversial opinions under their own name. These include "smart" people like Terrace Tao (and less famous people I know personally). If cautious people with widely-accepted political opinions don't express them, the only opinions you see are the fearless, controversial ones. This is already true and will remain true unless social media fundamentally changes, because controversial opinions get more attention, and people tend to hold them more passionately (so post more frequently). But still, posting widely-accepted political opinions that you personally hold is probably an overall good idea, because they can be an "anchor" for people with similar opinions who are confused why they're uncommon, preventing them from being radicalized.
Though the author certainly gets one thing right: posting fringe opinions under your own name in public is usually a terrible idea, and although you may be safe from government reaction, you can't avoid people around you (including your employer) reacting negatively.
> I wish to emphasize beyond any shadow of a doubt this is not a partisan thing and that this is true regardless of whether you are left, right, up, down, top, bottom, strange, or charm.
Okay, but in the next sentence,
> Actions like (a) our doxxing website, (b) the cheering on of the event itself, (c) the event itself
A is (at worst) a collateral tort, B is in poor taste but legally acceptable in most jurisdictions (for now), and C is a criminal act.
Treating all three as members of the same set, morally speaking, is not particularly convincing.
I understand that the first quote is necessary given the rest of the post and your aspirations to noble gashood, but you’re running the risk of becoming hot air.
I doubt things are as bleak as the author states.
People don't get cancelled for expressing any political views, they get cancelled for expressing political views outside the Overton Window. Despite what social media may suggest, cheering the murder of anyone who's not a murderer or war criminal themselves is still taboo (social media is a heavily distorted reflection of reality similar in some ways to reality TV). Consider that nobody has been fired from their job for expressing sympathy towards Charlie Kirk (or Melissa Hortman or Brian Thompson).
Although the Overton Window shifts, traditional opinions are still protected by numbers. You're highly unlikely to be fired or ostracized because of something you posted 10 years ago if some of your bosses, colleagues, and neighbors have posted similar things. Most people admire the founding fathers today even though they owned slaves, while those same people condemn slavery and directly acknowledge the founding fathers were immoral in that regard; because they accept that in their time it was normal, and they were selfless relative to others in their demographic.
Furthermore, social media is not a dark forest, as the author alludes to: many people frequently post controversial opinions under their own name. These include "smart" people like Terrace Tao (and less famous people I know personally). If cautious people with widely-accepted political opinions don't express them, the only opinions you see are the fearless, controversial ones. This is already true and will remain true unless social media fundamentally changes, because controversial opinions get more attention, and people tend to hold them more passionately (so post more frequently). But still, posting widely-accepted political opinions that you personally hold is probably an overall good idea, because they can be an "anchor" for people with similar opinions who are confused why they're uncommon, preventing them from being radicalized.
Though the author certainly gets one thing right: posting fringe opinions under your own name in public is usually a terrible idea, and although you may be safe from government reaction, you can't avoid people around you (including your employer) reacting negatively.
> I wish to emphasize beyond any shadow of a doubt this is not a partisan thing and that this is true regardless of whether you are left, right, up, down, top, bottom, strange, or charm.
Okay, but in the next sentence,
> Actions like (a) our doxxing website, (b) the cheering on of the event itself, (c) the event itself
A is (at worst) a collateral tort, B is in poor taste but legally acceptable in most jurisdictions (for now), and C is a criminal act.
Treating all three as members of the same set, morally speaking, is not particularly convincing.
I understand that the first quote is necessary given the rest of the post and your aspirations to noble gashood, but you’re running the risk of becoming hot air.