he had displayed an improper “political” message in the workplace during his assignment in California under President Joe Biden
The gay pride flag was displayed during his assignment in California under President Joe Biden? That is completely ridiculous. Thought crime is one thing, but retroactive thought crime is delusion.
During Soviet times figures drifted in and out of favour. An old joke:
Three men are sitting in a jail cell. “How did you end up here?” asks one the other. “I criticized Karl Radek,” he says. “No way!” replies the first man. “I got here for supporting Karl Radek!”
They turn over to the third guy in the corner and ask him why he got there. He sighs heavily and answers: “I’m Karl Radek.”
It is amazing how Americans manage to be so arrogant regardless of reality. Has it ever occurred to you that the US has funded death squads across the world? Trump is pretty par for the course, he’s just terrorizing American cities instead of South American or Middle Eastern.
Man I hate to look like I’m siding with Patel here…but “Congress shall make no law”. Not a second amendment issue, because Patel isn’t making a law or sitting in Congress.
But, federal jobs usually aren’t at-will and usually protected against wrongful termination by civil service laws.
But, while he could fight it, the courts aren’t exactly in his favor right now.
That clause doesn’t limit the scope to only members of Congress or laws they write. Supreme Court interpretation, 14th amendment, etc. have expanded that to government writ large.
Free speech protections generally extend to government employees, except in the scope of speech related to their official duties, to my understanding. It would be difficult to seriously argue a pride flag in someone’s office in the past meets that criteria of official duties. My faith in the courts to consistently hold that precedent is not high these days, however.
I completely agree with you on this case. Especially since it was allowed at the time by that administration and if they aren’t showing it now because of this administration then why are we doing this except to purge Democrat.
Now, here’s the part where I get downvoted because people won’t want to acknowledge this:
You said retroactive thought crime is a big no no, but many cancellations of recent past (last 5-7 years at least) have been what you would label “retroactive thought crimes”. When someone pulls Twitter posts or quotes of people from their past and use it as justification for cancelling them then that is exactly what a retroactive thought crime is.
One of two things may be true here. First, they still believe what they said and thus we should hold them accountable for not growing and hurting others. Second, they said that stuff and forgot about it but have changed their opinion and truly regret it. They should be given a chance to explain their position either way. Chances are we can tell if they’re sincere based on how they’ve been acting or talking over time.
If I’m being honest, I am guilty of judging others for their past without further finding out if they have actually changed or not. I fully own that.
My dude, there’s a monumental difference between the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who gets cancelled over a past instance of being racist, homophobic, transphobic, a sexual abuser, or whatever other heinous/bigoted act, and the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who puts a pride flag on their desk.
What is the difference? I mean can you create a definition that doesn’t say “I like this thing and dislike that thing” to differentiate them? Because I can’t.
Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not. Both are persecution of retroactive thought crimes. It’s just one is a justifiable case (cancellation of celebs) and another is not (pride flag).
If you still disagree then how else do you exactly define a retroactive thought crime?
Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not.
Are you for real? Like, do you actually believe this? To be clear, it looks like you’re equating the federal government violating first amendment rights to the court of public opinion cancelling someone. Is that really what you’re trying to do here, or am I missing something?
Also I’d actually advise against using the term “retroactive thought crime” at all in this case, because there’s no reason to invent new words for something we already have really fucking good words for, which, again, is “first amendment rights violation”.
Canceling is usually performed against someone that offers their product by the people that the product is offered to. If I can spend my money on anything I want, and performer X says that I am a loser, I am not going to give performer X my money. I can choose things that X said 20 years ago, and I can choose stupid and invalid things to not give them my money. I think that’s understood: It is X’s responsibility to make sure that I want to give them my money, neither mine nor the government’s.
You give a good example in a different comment of a company (Disney) firing someone (James Gunn) because they were concerned about fallout from cancellation. That part is iffy, as we have seen with the Kimmel fiasco. Corporations have a hard time figuring out what is okay and what isn’t. The Coors Light debacle shows that even the best intentions can spectacularly backfire.
What we have here is the FBI, the Federal Law Enforcement agency, targeting an employee for perfectly legal conduct that was considered perfectly normal under the circumstances. People can and do judge, corporations can judge, but it’s risky. The Federal government is barred by the First Amendment from infringing on free speech. That includes the speech of its own employees.
The person fired seems to have been in their probationary period, and that might hold up in court. It’s still a shocking example of government persecution of retroactive thought crime.
I am surprised they are so blatant about this, because of course the same logic applies in reverse, too - in the future, should Democrats return to government, anyone could get fired for being a member of Truth Social, or having posted something pro-Trump on Facebook. Which just shows you that this Administration doesn’t consider it possible that they’ll ever have to leave office.
many cancellations of recent past (last 5-7 years at least) have been what you would label “retroactive thought crimes”.
When that’s what’s happening in the literal government maybe that will be relevant, but this is ridiculous ‘both sides’ nonsense. Oh no, people don’t want to work with some celebrity anymore because they got accused of something bigoted, this is just like the government firing personnel because they displayed a Pride flag in California years ago! As long as you ignore all the surrounding context, they’re exactly the same!
I am asking you to define retroactive thought crime, not what is justifiable. That’s a different argument and my point was that cancellation of some people is a punishment using retroactive thought crime based on what I understand the definition to be.
I won’t, because that’s not what the thread is about. It’s about the FBI director abusing his authority. Trying to turn this into a cancel culture discussion is a distraction from this insane homophobic abuse of power from the highest members of government.
I’m not trying to turn this into cancel culture at all.
I reread the original post I replied to and what I said. I still think the example I brought up is an example of retroactive thought crimes, but I understand your point and where you’re coming from. I think I took the original comment wrong so I’ll just end it here.
I’m sorry. You’re right. This thread is and should be about the bullshit the administration is doing.
You said retroactive thought crime is a big no no, but many cancellations of recent past (last 5-7 years at least) have been what you would label “retroactive thought crimes”.
Gonna need some examples because every time I’ve seen this sort of thing it generally turns out to be not true and not backed by examples. “Canceling” in most cases is someone saying something incredibly shitty then being shocked that the group that they said it about gets annoyed with them on the internet. This rarely has real world repercussions for that person and in the rare times it does it’s because they recently said something super racists/sexist/awful and the backlash from said group is significant enough that companies distance themselves from that person. These are almost exclusively public figures that it happens to and rarely, if ever, non-public figures.
The only time I’ve seen actual “canceling” happen to regular ass people is from the recent Charlie Kirk shit. If you can cite examples that would be stupendous. Otherwise I’m going to assume you’re kind of full of shit.
Fine, let’s go with James Gunn and his firing by Disney because of past Twitter comments. James was quick to explain, publicly, that he had stupid past decisions and doesn’t stand by them anymore as he has grown as a person. It took that as well as others advocating for him for Disney to consider bringing him back. It wouldn’t have happened without the people advocating for him who know him.
I understand your point and agree. I am asking how that is not punishing someone using retroactive thought crime. I’m asking you, how is it defined if you think that example isn’t an example? At literal translation, it defines it perfectly whether you agree with who or what it happened to or not.
The gay pride flag was displayed during his assignment in California under President Joe Biden? That is completely ridiculous. Thought crime is one thing, but retroactive thought crime is delusion.
Have you seen Kash Patel pictures, does that look like a sane and not-on cocaine person to you
Thought crimes are very often retroactive.
During Soviet times figures drifted in and out of favour. An old joke:
Three men are sitting in a jail cell. “How did you end up here?” asks one the other. “I criticized Karl Radek,” he says. “No way!” replies the first man. “I got here for supporting Karl Radek!”
They turn over to the third guy in the corner and ask him why he got there. He sighs heavily and answers: “I’m Karl Radek.”
Well, I mean, the moment you start thinking of the United States of America as being like the good ole’ Soviet Union, you know something is wrong.
It is amazing how Americans manage to be so arrogant regardless of reality. Has it ever occurred to you that the US has funded death squads across the world? Trump is pretty par for the course, he’s just terrorizing American cities instead of South American or Middle Eastern.
I already started adapting my old joke repertoire!
Two federal agents are patrolling Washington DC. After a period of silence, one asks the other what he thinks of the current leadership.
After pondering what to answer for a bit, the second guy answers. “Same as you,” he says.
“Well, in that case I’m afraid I must arrest you.”
But doesn’t the officer then have to arrest themself? I don’t get it.
Freedom of speech‽ The goddamn FBI isn’t a private entity
There are no rights beyond what the administration allows. If they choose to remove your fredom of speech, who’s going to stop them? SCOTUS?
US?
Man I hate to look like I’m siding with Patel here…but “Congress shall make no law”. Not a second amendment issue, because Patel isn’t making a law or sitting in Congress.
But, federal jobs usually aren’t at-will and usually protected against wrongful termination by civil service laws.
But, while he could fight it, the courts aren’t exactly in his favor right now.
If you’re going to talk out of your ass you should at least get the amendments right.
That clause doesn’t limit the scope to only members of Congress or laws they write. Supreme Court interpretation, 14th amendment, etc. have expanded that to government writ large.
Free speech protections generally extend to government employees, except in the scope of speech related to their official duties, to my understanding. It would be difficult to seriously argue a pride flag in someone’s office in the past meets that criteria of official duties. My faith in the courts to consistently hold that precedent is not high these days, however.
At-will employment doesn’t allow you to violate someone’s constitutional rights.
I completely agree with you on this case. Especially since it was allowed at the time by that administration and if they aren’t showing it now because of this administration then why are we doing this except to purge Democrat.
Now, here’s the part where I get downvoted because people won’t want to acknowledge this:
You said retroactive thought crime is a big no no, but many cancellations of recent past (last 5-7 years at least) have been what you would label “retroactive thought crimes”. When someone pulls Twitter posts or quotes of people from their past and use it as justification for cancelling them then that is exactly what a retroactive thought crime is.
One of two things may be true here. First, they still believe what they said and thus we should hold them accountable for not growing and hurting others. Second, they said that stuff and forgot about it but have changed their opinion and truly regret it. They should be given a chance to explain their position either way. Chances are we can tell if they’re sincere based on how they’ve been acting or talking over time.
If I’m being honest, I am guilty of judging others for their past without further finding out if they have actually changed or not. I fully own that.
My dude, there’s a monumental difference between the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who gets cancelled over a past instance of being racist, homophobic, transphobic, a sexual abuser, or whatever other heinous/bigoted act, and the “retroactive thought crime” committed by someone who puts a pride flag on their desk.
What is the difference? I mean can you create a definition that doesn’t say “I like this thing and dislike that thing” to differentiate them? Because I can’t.
Yes. Context is different, but by definition it is not. Both are persecution of retroactive thought crimes. It’s just one is a justifiable case (cancellation of celebs) and another is not (pride flag).
If you still disagree then how else do you exactly define a retroactive thought crime?
Are you for real? Like, do you actually believe this? To be clear, it looks like you’re equating the federal government violating first amendment rights to the court of public opinion cancelling someone. Is that really what you’re trying to do here, or am I missing something?
Also I’d actually advise against using the term “retroactive thought crime” at all in this case, because there’s no reason to invent new words for something we already have really fucking good words for, which, again, is “first amendment rights violation”.
You know what? I latched onto a single thing and misinterpreted what was being said.
You’re absolutely right. This is about the first amendment and the context is very different. I’m sorry.
Let’s definitely put the pressure where it’s deserved—this shit, weaponized administration.
Canceling is usually performed against someone that offers their product by the people that the product is offered to. If I can spend my money on anything I want, and performer X says that I am a loser, I am not going to give performer X my money. I can choose things that X said 20 years ago, and I can choose stupid and invalid things to not give them my money. I think that’s understood: It is X’s responsibility to make sure that I want to give them my money, neither mine nor the government’s.
You give a good example in a different comment of a company (Disney) firing someone (James Gunn) because they were concerned about fallout from cancellation. That part is iffy, as we have seen with the Kimmel fiasco. Corporations have a hard time figuring out what is okay and what isn’t. The Coors Light debacle shows that even the best intentions can spectacularly backfire.
What we have here is the FBI, the Federal Law Enforcement agency, targeting an employee for perfectly legal conduct that was considered perfectly normal under the circumstances. People can and do judge, corporations can judge, but it’s risky. The Federal government is barred by the First Amendment from infringing on free speech. That includes the speech of its own employees.
The person fired seems to have been in their probationary period, and that might hold up in court. It’s still a shocking example of government persecution of retroactive thought crime.
I am surprised they are so blatant about this, because of course the same logic applies in reverse, too - in the future, should Democrats return to government, anyone could get fired for being a member of Truth Social, or having posted something pro-Trump on Facebook. Which just shows you that this Administration doesn’t consider it possible that they’ll ever have to leave office.
You’re spot on and thank you for your analysis here.
When that’s what’s happening in the literal government maybe that will be relevant, but this is ridiculous ‘both sides’ nonsense. Oh no, people don’t want to work with some celebrity anymore because they got accused of something bigoted, this is just like the government firing personnel because they displayed a Pride flag in California years ago! As long as you ignore all the surrounding context, they’re exactly the same!
I am asking you to define retroactive thought crime, not what is justifiable. That’s a different argument and my point was that cancellation of some people is a punishment using retroactive thought crime based on what I understand the definition to be.
I won’t, because that’s not what the thread is about. It’s about the FBI director abusing his authority. Trying to turn this into a cancel culture discussion is a distraction from this insane homophobic abuse of power from the highest members of government.
I’m not trying to turn this into cancel culture at all.
I reread the original post I replied to and what I said. I still think the example I brought up is an example of retroactive thought crimes, but I understand your point and where you’re coming from. I think I took the original comment wrong so I’ll just end it here.
I’m sorry. You’re right. This thread is and should be about the bullshit the administration is doing.
Gonna need some examples because every time I’ve seen this sort of thing it generally turns out to be not true and not backed by examples. “Canceling” in most cases is someone saying something incredibly shitty then being shocked that the group that they said it about gets annoyed with them on the internet. This rarely has real world repercussions for that person and in the rare times it does it’s because they recently said something super racists/sexist/awful and the backlash from said group is significant enough that companies distance themselves from that person. These are almost exclusively public figures that it happens to and rarely, if ever, non-public figures.
The only time I’ve seen actual “canceling” happen to regular ass people is from the recent Charlie Kirk shit. If you can cite examples that would be stupendous. Otherwise I’m going to assume you’re kind of full of shit.
Fine, let’s go with James Gunn and his firing by Disney because of past Twitter comments. James was quick to explain, publicly, that he had stupid past decisions and doesn’t stand by them anymore as he has grown as a person. It took that as well as others advocating for him for Disney to consider bringing him back. It wouldn’t have happened without the people advocating for him who know him.
I understand your point and agree. I am asking how that is not punishing someone using retroactive thought crime. I’m asking you, how is it defined if you think that example isn’t an example? At literal translation, it defines it perfectly whether you agree with who or what it happened to or not.