I agree. And while there's been lots of chatter about it, as is protected by the 1st amendment, to my knowledge there has been no "interference" of any kind, from the "woke police" (whoever they are), or any other outside influence.
So we can both take heart that the system is working as it should.
By the way, the woke police...they live inside of my head.
trying to shame or ridicule a person or institution on Twitter or in traditional media IMHO is interference. Especially nowadays, when all sorts of people take it upon themselves to go online and harass people they think are too "woke." After all, wokeism is apparently one of the worst problems our country is facing according to some Twits.
The shaming takes place on both sides, but the canceling (censorship) is mostly from the "woke" side.
that's pretty funny. Ask The Chicks or Colin Kaepernick about being "canceled."
No matter how many times I watch this he never mentions M&Ms, gas stoves, soy chai lattes, Nikes, public schools, the United States military, Star Trek Discovery, Girl Scouts, Colin Kaepernick, The Chicks, Target, NASCAR, Keurig, Gillette, American Airlines, the 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast, Campbell's soup, She Hulk: Attorney at Law, Rings of Power, House of the Dragon, the Willow TV series, Scooby-Doo, the Hallmark Channel, the 2016 version of Ghostbusters, Coca Cola and Pepsi? All of which have been accused of being woke, none of which pointed a finger to call out anyone, so what gives?
No matter how many times I watch this he never mentions M&Ms, gas stoves, soy chai lattes, Nikes, public schools, the United States military, Star Trek Discovery, Girl Scouts, Colin Kaepernick, The Chicks, Target, NASCAR, Keurig, Gillette, American Airlines, the 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast, Campbell's soup, She Hulk: Attorney at Law, Rings of Power, House of the Dragon, the Willow TV series, Scooby-Doo, the Hallmark Channel, the 2016 version of Ghostbusters, Coca Cola and Pepsi? All of which have been accused of being woke, none of which pointed a finger to call out anyone, so what gives?
If you're talking about taking down the website/list, it's censorship by definition, but I don't think it's "canceling," which has connotations that go beyond censorship.
There is likely no First Amendment issue since Stanford is a private institution, unless Stanford was pressured to take down the website by a government official or agency (what happened in Twitter, as revealed in the Twitter Files).
I agree. And while there's been lots of chatter about it, as is protected by the 1st amendment, to my knowledge there has been no "interference" of any kind, from the "woke police" (whoever they are), or any other outside influence.
So we can both take heart that the system is working as it should.
By the way, the woke police...they live inside of my head.
trying to shame or ridicule a person or institution on Twitter or in traditional media IMHO is interference. Especially nowadays, when all sorts of people take it upon themselves to go online and harass people they think are too "woke." After all, wokeism is apparently one of the worst problems our country is facing according to some Twits.
The shaming takes place on both sides, but the canceling (censorship) is mostly from the "woke" side.
that's pretty funny. Ask The Chicks or Colin Kaepernick about being "canceled."
No matter how many times I watch this he never mentions M&Ms, gas stoves, soy chai lattes, Nikes, public schools, the United States military, Star Trek Discovery, Girl Scouts, Colin Kaepernick, The Chicks, Target, NASCAR, Keurig, Gillette, American Airlines, the 2017 version of Beauty and the Beast, Campbell's soup, She Hulk: Attorney at Law, Rings of Power, House of the Dragon, the Willow TV series, Scooby-Doo, the Hallmark Channel, the 2016 version of Ghostbusters, Coca Cola and Pepsi? All of which have been accused of being woke, none of which pointed a finger to call out anyone, so what gives?
If you're talking about taking down the website/list, it's censorship by definition, but I don't think it's "canceling," which has connotations that go beyond censorship.
There is likely no First Amendment issue since Stanford is a private institution, unless Stanford was pressured to take down the website by a government official or agency (what happened in Twitter, as revealed in the Twitter Files).
Hilarious that you can say "as revealed in the Twitter files" with a straight face.
I agree. And while there's been lots of chatter about it, as is protected by the 1st amendment, to my knowledge there has been no "interference" of any kind, from the "woke police" (whoever they are), or any other outside influence.
So we can both take heart that the system is working as it should.
By the way, the woke police...they live inside of my head.
trying to shame or ridicule a person or institution on Twitter or in traditional media IMHO is interference. Especially nowadays, when all sorts of people take it upon themselves to go online and harass people they think are too "woke." After all, wokeism is apparently one of the worst problems our country is facing according to some Twits.
So if I responded to USC on Twitter and said something along the lines of "I think your word change is pretty dumb and an example of excessive wokeness", that would be interference?
You call a pretty tight game. If you were an NFL ref you'd throw a flag on the crowd for DPI.
I agree. And while there's been lots of chatter about it, as is protected by the 1st amendment, to my knowledge there has been no "interference" of any kind, from the "woke police" (whoever they are), or any other outside influence.
So we can both take heart that the system is working as it should.
By the way, the woke police...they live inside of my head.
trying to shame or ridicule a person or institution on Twitter or in traditional media IMHO is interference. Especially nowadays, when all sorts of people take it upon themselves to go online and harass people they think are too "woke." After all, wokeism is apparently one of the worst problems our country is facing according to some Twits.
So if I responded to USC on Twitter and said something along the lines of "I think your word change is pretty dumb and an example of excessive wokeness", that would be interference?
You call a pretty tight game. If you were an NFL ref you'd throw a flag on the crowd for DPI.
I don't know what gave you that impression.
People and organizations with massive followings highlighting these stories invite harassment of their targets. I'm not suggesting they don't have a right to do it. It just is what it is.
One random dude tweeting at them isn't the same thing.
So if I responded to USC on Twitter and said something along the lines of "I think your word change is pretty dumb and an example of excessive wokeness", that would be interference?
If you don’t mean to interfere, why would you respond to USC on Twitter? Just need to get it off your chest?
So if I responded to USC on Twitter and said something along the lines of "I think your word change is pretty dumb and an example of excessive wokeness", that would be interference?
If you don’t mean to interfere, why would you respond to USC on Twitter? Just need to get it off your chest?
I haven't done so, but if I were so inclined, perhaps that would be my motivation. USC has open Twitter profiles, they know how the platform works, and as an institution of higher learning, they should be willing to allow open discourse on their twitter, even if it's critical. And it looks like they do, from the quick look I just had.
It seems you would find such a response objectionable. What do you find objectionable about it?
It seems you would find such a response objectionable. What do you find objectionable about it?
No objection at all. ”It seems” that interference would be a primary reason for tweeting at someone, so I asked.
Interfere is defined as: (1) to take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity. (2) to prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
Examples of interference in this situation could be some far-right group suing USC, or CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy calling a hearing and/or publicly requesting that USC undo the word change. Something active like that.
I fail to see how tweeting at someone, even if you have a big following, is interference.
Interfere is defined as: (1) to take part or intervene in an activity without invitation or necessity. (2) to prevent (a process or activity) from continuing or being carried out properly.
Examples of interference in this situation could be some far-right group suing USC, or CA Rep. Kevin McCarthy calling a hearing and/or publicly requesting that USC undo the word change. Something active like that.
I fail to see how tweeting at someone, even if you have a big following, is interference.
you seem to be a bit naive regarding the potential for harassment among some people's Twitter followings
that's pretty funny. Ask The Chicks or Colin Kaepernick about being "canceled."
For real.