The assassination of Charlie Kirk and the aftermath of spin and consequences has brought out the best of veteran commenter Glenn Logan, who just had a distinguished COTD two days ago. Here is another, this one on the post, “Ethics Dunce: Stephen King.”
Among Glenn’s points was the topic of an EA post that his supersedes. Glenn writes,
“Getting someone fired for dancing on the grave of a person unlawfully killed in front of his family while speaking to a group of college students is not “cancel culture.” It is justified societal opprobrium for awful, unethical behavior that casts significant doubt on their possession of important qualities of caring, fairness, respect and humanity that are absolutely required for a society to function even at a basic level.”
Bingo.
Above you see an (incomplete) spreadsheet of individuals who have openly celebrated or justified Kirk’s assassination. I doubt that it is compete (and surprised that it is so short), but never mind: the issue is which of them deserve to be fired.
- There are 19 teachers who are, to use Glenn’s term, ghouls on the list. All of them should be fired. Teachers have to convey values as well critical thinking to their students. Believing in political violence disqualified them for either job.
- 23 on the list have jobs that I would hold are irrelevant to expressed opinions, even ones as repulsive as cheering o a murderer. If cognitive dissonance causes others to avoid them or boycott their services, that the risk one takes no matter what opinion is broadcast to the world. The 23 includes several nurses, a veterinarian, a data analyst, two librarians, some physicians, two restaurant workers, a barber, a “processor,” an “assistant,”an author, a flight attendant, a few therapists, a business owner, a trans activist, a BLM organizer, IT support staff, a “patient support” staffer, a “wealth manager,” a retail manager and a real estate agent. These should probably not be fired.
- Then there are the close calls. I would not want a professor working at my university who tried to validate Kirk’s shooting: There two of them.There is a judge, but a judge can’t be fired. A statement like that is a violation of legal ethics: I’d advise official suspension. An athletic coach? Coaches are teachers, but what they teach is very narrow in scope. I think I would call the coach into my office for a chat. There is an author; he or she should probably get a pass. The suicide prevention aide is a tough one: suggestions welcome.
- The VP of Internal Affairs at a major law firm has a lot of explaining to do. I think an officer endorsing murder will cost Fried Frank clients, and on that basis, I’d fire Kassen Smith. Similarly, I think the NAACP does not need high ranking officials to be endorsing murder: I also will be shocked if the firm does anything about it. The corporate rep may find that the corporation doesn’t want to be identified with someone who advocates violence.
- As for the political types—a mayor, several city council members, and a “city appointee,” the public has to decide.
- I’m guessing the Secret Service agent’s days are numbered, as are the data analysts for the Justice Department. The latter may have a strong first amendment argument.
Now here’s Glenn Logan’s Comment of the Day…
The left, collectively, are tainted by the shocking number of ghouls in their ranks.
No, not every left-leaning person is a ghoul, but what’s gobsmacking to me is how few of them are taking their crazies to task. Instead, they are lamenting a conservative “cancel culture,” which this manifestly is not.
Getting someone fired for a 20-year old tweet is “cancel culture.” Getting someone fired because they believe transgender people are mentally infirm is “cancel culture.” In other words, getting people fired because of a debatable opinion is “cancel culture.”
Getting someone fired for dancing on the grave of a person unlawfully killed in front of his family while speaking to a group of college students is not “cancel culture.” It is justified societal opprobrium for awful, unethical behavior that casts significant doubt on their possession of important qualities of caring, fairness, respect and humanity that are absolutely required for a society to function even at a basic level. Even if one could rationally argue that world is a better place without Kirk in it, celebrating murder has been a societal taboo for most of human history, and certainly since the founding of this country.
On top of all that, no one I have seen on the left finds it the least bit troubling that a man fired a shot into an area where many innocents stood, not just Kirk. What if the shooter had killed a bystander (who would’ve been just a college student, most likely), like Corey Comperatore, a firefighter and father, was when a leftist tried to kill Trump?
How is it possible that leftist politics have left so many people without any discernible feelings for anyone other than those who agree with them? Their souls seem to be as dead as their ethics alarms.
Ethics Alarms 
Thanks for the COTD, Jack.
I think the key to who should and should not be fired is how much disrepute they bring on their employer. Generally, those working for the government are likely to have a First Amendment argument, and I totally agree that elected officials should be dealt with by those who elect them.
I find this whole exercise somewhat cathartic, though. Far from wanting these creatures to shut up, I want them to keep speaking. America should be able to clearly identify those who are incapable of controlling their passion or engaging even momentarily their god-given intelligence without filtering it through ideology.
Another huge driver for this behavior is “likes” or whatever on social media. It seems to me that our society is simply not ready for social media. Too many just cannot rein in their desire to be “seen” by as many people as possible, and that desire blinds them to the inhumanity of their comments. Every time I hear a person say they desire to feel “seen,” I always wonder what the hell is wrong with them that they require the attention of others to validate their lives or opinions.
Jesus, as usual, says it best:
“For no good tree bears bad fruit, nor again does a bad tree bear good fruit. Each tree is known by its own fruit, for figs are not gathered from thorns, nor are grapes picked from a bramble bush. The good man out of the good treasure of his heart produces good, and the evil man out of his evil treasure produces evil; for out of the abundance of the heart his mouth speaks.” (Luke 6:43-45. See also Matthew 15:18-19).
So many one the left don’t want us to judge them by their loathsome behavior. Based on what I am seeing, Charlie Kirk’s death and the left’s reaction to it is just too much to ignore.
Spot on! So many people say things like, “You can’t judge a book by its cover. You can’t see what’s in my heart.” Well, Jesus didn’t say that…He said the exact opposite of that. You CAN judge a book by its cover. A tree is known by its fruits, and I may not know exactly what’s in a person’s heart, but I have a really good idea because it usually comes pouring out their mouths…or out their fingers as they “talk” on social media.
And the murder of Charlie Kirk has revealed the hearts of an awful lot of people…and quite a few are pretty grotesque.
Anyone in health care including the nurses must be fired.
They’ve expressed joy at the active killing of someone for political reasons. How much easier is it to justify passively “letting someone die” for political reasons.
“First, do no harm.”
It’s just four short words, yet so very VERY hard for some people to comprehend.
–Dwayne
I agree. Wasn’t there a nurse fired a few years ago for suggesting online that she’d made a blood draw difficult for a patient deliberately after he expressed social issue opinions she didn’t like? How do we know someone cheering on Kirk’s murder or expresses that people like him need to die would not give subpar care to a patient who agreed with Kirk’s opinions?
Here is former MSNBC analyst Mark Halperin’s take on the wailing and gnashing of teeth of the left after the many firings:
“More outrageous liberal media bias: After years of cheering on the Left/Dominant Media attempts to stifle/punish conservative speech and cancel the lives of those they didn’t like, now the Washington Post and New York Times news desks are positively outraged that the Right is using the same techniques to punish those who have publicly spoken out against Kirk since his murder, often cheering. All of a sudden, free speech rights are sacrosanct and organized efforts to get someone cancelled are unacceptable. Amazing.”
I am glad that the many influencers on the right such as Libs of TikTok are actively exposing those on the social media and reporting these to their employers to get these folks fired.
The left invented cancel culture. They lectured us incessantly that words have consequences. They set the rules of doxxing and cancelling people for speech they did not like. However they were not sufficiently aware of Game Theory. Now they are forced to live and suffer under the rules they have created themselves. Some of them are now judged and treated the same way as the left treated others, for speech that is totally beyond the pale and rending the fabric of society. Matthew 7:1-2, one of the liberals favorite texts in the Bible, perfectly applies here “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.”
Correct. No one on the right wanted the cold civil war but the left started it expecting never to be casualties.
Here we are.
Getting someone fired for dancing on the grave of a person unlawfully killed in front of his family while speaking to a group of college students is not “cancel culture.” It is justified societal opprobrium …
Nailed it.
Why so many women?
Progressive women are among the mentally ill stockholm syndrome having people on the planet.
Any writer that use oppobromiun in such a well contruted sentence needs to be given tenure in an University Englsih department.
That aside, the diagnistic word that describe todays Left is Narcissitic Peronality Disorder
Here was what Yascha Mounk wrote years ago.
https://archive.md/LcTXk
Nevertheless, it would be a big mistake—especially for those who deeply care about social justice—to dismiss the fate of people such as Cafferty, Shor, and Wadi as a minor detail or a necessary price for progress.
First, these incidents damage the lives of innocent people without achieving any noble purpose.
Second, such injustices are liable to provoke a political backlash. If a lot of Americans come to feel that those who supposedly oppose racism are willing to punish the innocent to look good in the public’s eyes, they could well grow cynical about the enterprise as a whole.
Third, those of us who want to build a better society should defend the innocent because movements willing to sacrifice justice in the pursuit of noble goals have, again and again, built societies characterized by pervasive injustice.
Regardless of whether you agree with Munk, he was right on this.
The very same people cheering the assasination of Charlie Kirk are the very same people who are willing to sacrifice justice in pursuit of “nonle” goals, the very same people who cheered the firing of Emmanuel Cafferty.
Here is plug to a YouTube video by a corporate lawyer who recommends that that action must be taken on grounds of personal safety to report any employee who makes posts on social media that are threatening, which includes post that cheer on political violence and assassination. The ground is that each employer has a fiduciary duty to its employees to provide a safe work environment. An employee who makes threatening post may also create an unsafe work environment for people who have the same political outlook as Charlie Kirk.
His recommendation is to make the complaint OSHA as OSHA instead of to HR. A complaint to OSHA is more likely to work because
I disagree with some of the career categories included in your second bullet point — the “maybe don’t fire” list.
IMO, no one with any responsibility for health or safety should celebrate a murder. That’s anyone in health care, any first responder, and anyone involved in transportation (pilots, attendants, train drivers, mechanics).
No one whose job includes customer service of any kind (including barbers and restaurant workers) can be trusted after celebrating a murder.
Librarians are teachers.
In a broader sense, posting a public celebration of an assassination, or of any murder, shows colossally poor judgement, which ought to be disqualifier for nearly any job.
I would disagree that librarians or library assistants should not be fired. A profession whose stated goal is the protection of free speech, should be held accountable. They are celebrating the death of someone assassinated for participating in and promoting free speech. That is hypocrisy at the very least.
The following tweet is interesting. Are they automating the search of social media posts cheering on the assassination?