Getting fired for breaking the rules of your work is not “extreme ostracism”, or rather if it is, then why even the term “extreme ostracism”, because it’s just a way of obfuscating “getting fired”. And what makes it “extreme” then? Because if you argued semantics to claim getting fired was ostracism, you’d need more to claim it was “extreme”.
What kind of job do you have? I feel like you’re a young person who maybe has no idea how a professional environment works.
You say “maybe justified”. You try and act like it’s “much easier to fire people” in the US and that’s why (it is easier in a lot of states - they’re called “Right to Work” states, which actually means you can be fired for anything at any time - California isn’t one of them). No. It was justified. A worker sending around a political opinion, which denigrated some of the employees (however “minor” you, as a male and someone who seems keen on pseudo-science, think it was), via a mass-channel, is certainly going to be gross misconduct in most companies. That’s firing on the spot material. It’s very much like sending around an email explain to everyone that your boss is bad at his job and here’s why, and sure, you’re polite, and reasonable and don’t swear and stick to what you regard as “the facts”, but it’s not professional or acceptable to write about another employee like that and then mass-mail it to entire firm.
This was an attention-seeking act from a narcissist, with idiotic views, and that you’re defending it frankly calls into question your basic rationality here. That’s why I’m still asking about what you do. In no professional firm, would this sort of thing be tolerated. If a woman did it, yeah they’d get fired too. Imagine some random programmer at Blizzard decides she’s going to write a half-arsed, faux-scientific bunch of bollocks about how men, in general, have certain (broadly negative and very stereotyped) characteristic, and we could help them out, do you think she’d still be there the next day? If you do, that’s the problem. You don’t understand how to act appropriately in a professional environment. Lots of people don’t, and they get fucking fired (I can think of numerous employees, male and female, fired from companies I’ve worked at, because they were incapable of basic professionalism).
I mean, let’s be clear - he knew this was wrong. He knew he’d create a fuss. But he seems to have been so arrogant that he thought that breaking the rules, doing what he felt like, and stereotyping a bunch of his co-workers, in public, was totally cool. I can only assumed he’d gotten away with quite a lot of rules-breaking before to get into this position. You shouldn’t be defending arrogant narcissist who unemployably unprofessional, and who throw away jobs which pay really well and have great benefits, because they think it’s more important to that every single person in the company hears their ill-considered opinion.
I mean, would you do that? Even if you thought what he did, would just email around a political screed to the entire company or department or whatever? Because if you do jesus wept.
You’re confusing leftism with libertarianism. Tech has a strong libertarian bias. That’s a basically right-wing viewpoint, but one that is socially liberal in the sense that it says “Do whatever the hell you want, just don’t do it on my property”. Libertarians don’t think there should be laws against homosexuality, they don’t support Jim Crow-type anti-black voting laws and so on, because they don’t feel that the state should be involved in any of that. They tend, even, to hate cops, but because cops enforce the state’s will and hurt people, not because cops are racists or whatever (to them that’s just a symptom of a bigger issue). They don’t support any laws on speech - they do tend to think you should be able to say anything to anyone. And I don’t want to give examples unless I have to, but at the extremes this breaks down, because they support a lot of things almost no-one in society does.
And that’s what most senior tech guys are. Zuckerberg and Dorsey are both libertarians, as is Musk. Just because someone doesn’t support laws against homosexuality or the like, doesn’t mean they’re “leftists”. Tech is libertarian. Especially US tech, especially California and Texas tech.
And if you want to claim bias, you need to prove the rules are biased, because they’re not enforced by some bunch of liberal/left people, they’re enforced by randos in India and the like, who just follow the rules. Hence someone gets banned for posting an anti-racist post which mentions a racist one (this literally happened recently to a friend on Facebook). In many cases AI does it.
Basically the problem here is, you want capitalism, but you want to put a ton of restrictions on private companies that essentially prevent them from firing bigots, even if they cause a massive problem and financial loss and harm to that company, and prevent them from getting rid of people who break their rules, even if they cause a problem and financial loss and harm to that company (or the company believes they will in the longer-term).
This to me is insane. And you don’t seem to be able to see that you’re essentially either, demanding it, or repeatedly suggesting it as a possibility if not demanding it. Do you want some kind of totalitarian forced bigot-toleration? Do you want the cops to come, when some guy who is making sexist or racist comments to the staff gets fired? Because you seem to asking for the police force private companies to employ people who are harming those companies (or the the companies think they are being harmed - but that’s even worse, then the company has to put up with the damage until it’s so terrible that it can demonstrate it).
You are, though, because no-one sane uses it in the third way you found. That’s just a confusing and stupid use of the term.
Breaking the rules is breaking the rules. It’s not deplatforming.
You keep saying you’ve accepted this, then repeatedly making suggestions to the contrary. You can’t have it both ways.
Sure we can. Because businesses don’t change policies unless it benefits them. And every social media company has been increasingly cracking down on hate and unpleasantness, even the ones originally specifically set up as extreme libertarian places (reddit, for example). Facebook is the only hold-out, but that’s a demographic issue. In the West, Facebook is the “olde person social network”. If you you’re on it, you can easily see people under 40 barely use it except sometimes to post cute pictures of their kids or animals, or share funny memes. Whereas older people use it intensely, and as I’ve said, they’re the ones who are the problem in terms of hate. So Facebook is reluctant to act because it might offend them.
Yet you keep returning, over and over, to the idea that the government will use some kind of brute force enforcement to make companies keep scumbags who are harming them on their products. If you’re British, that’s not the law, no. The law includes hate and no it’s not very subjective. And companies are private for a reason. Law is the public sphere. Don’t confuse the two.
Being fired for being completely unprofessional and engaging in misconduct isn’t “being cancelled”. If you think it is, you’re shitting on your own entire argument, because it’s literally nothing to do with being “cancelled”. I can send around an email to everyone in my firm talking about how great Corbyn was and how the Tories are idiots and we should help educate Tory-voters or whatever and get fired right now, if I want to.
That they weren’t “cancelled”. How is this difficult? Cancelled doesn’t mean “lost something because they said something”, or literally every human on the planet has been cancelled. Cancelled means some people, largely on social media, determined that something you did was wrong, and so banded together to say they would no longer buy your products or otherwise support you, and that they suggested that other people did likewise.
That’s it. If it’s not that, it’s not cancellation. Damore didn’t get fired because he got cancelled, he got fired because what in most firms would be termed gross misconduct. It’s not the highest form of gross misconduct (which is typically criminality), but it’s not that.
All the examples you’ve even hinted at so far have been people who committed misconduct at their jobs, and/or proved that they couldn’t do their job because it was incompatible with their political beliefs. You can’t just have any job with any belief set, y’know? You can’t be a hardline pacifist, and want to be in the special forces. You can’t be libertarian, and a police officer (not if you’re ever going to act on your views). And so on. Googling doesn’t show anyone who doesn’t fall into one of those categories as losing their jobs.
Self-employed people tend to only get cancelled after they’re massive multi-millionaires. None of them are fired or prevented from having a livelihood. It’s bizarre that you’re so concerned about multi-millionaires making less money, when coming out as gay or trans is much more likely genuinely hurt your employment prospects (especially if you’re not a nice safe white male homosexual).