Abortion.

Partial (and lightly edited) retweet from a comment on another topic:

A liberal publication fired its token "conservative" for saying mean things about modern liberalism's most sacred of institutions, abortion. Nothing to see here. Just business as usual.

This is why we are so divided today. Ideology-driven outlets hire someone from another side of the aisle to show they're not an ideology-driven outlet and then react violently when that person speaks a viewpoint not in lockstep with the majority of the outlet and its ideological staff.

Did The Atlantic not read Kevin Williamson's columns and tweets before hiring him? Were they somehow not aware he was stridently anti-abortion, despite his many comments and columns on the subject?

An intelligent give and take is not the hallmark of our political discourse today, especially when the topic is abortion.

By the way, not toeing the liberal line does not make one, by default, "conservative."

I tweeted something similar to what Conan wrote above. It's not like the guy hid his views.

What I don't understand is why we no longer find a person who has a view we disagree with -- even strongly disagree with -- acceptable for employment.

Also, in line with the #metoo thing, if somebody does something wrong (and I'm not saying rape wrong), should they be banned from ever earning a living in their field again?

A Kat Rosenfelt tweet on that -- from a comment on her podcast: https://twitter.com/katrosenfield/status/982013597399289856

The firing of people you politically disagree with is almost entirely a left wing thing Amy. There is also the disowning of family who voted differently than you. At least if they voted Republican. It stems from the old witticism, liberals think conservatives are evil while conservatives think liberals are wrong. When someone is evil you don't talk with them. You don't work with them. Evil things have to be stopped.

Which is kinda funny given that moral relativism is also a left wing thing. So all things can be accepted as long as they politically support the group.

Send The Atlantic’s editor, Mr. Jeff Goldberg, a Pussy Hat and a whip. He’s earned them.

Also, send him textbook about Central European Mid-Twentieth Century History. He might find that the information about people being fired for political views and their status (ethnic heritage, gender orientation, etc.) sounds familiar.

It's kind of hard to have an ideological argument with people whose entire ideology, dressed up though it may be with words like "violence" and hashtags like "#MeToo" boils down, essentially, to "Us versus Them."

That's why I think pointing out their inconsistencies and contradictions is kind of pointless.

The problem that causes situations like The Atlantic is the Internet. In the old days a magazine might get a few letters objecting to a writer but now the internet mob can try to shut them down, get their advertisers to withdraw, and perhaps over nothing. Likewise, no one would have known about this guy's obscure comment make way back when, but with the internet you can be pilloried for something you said or a tweet from years ago.

Victor Davis Hansen:

Sadly, I think Kevin Williamson will soon find that National Review was far more tolerant of his controversial views than will be true at The Atlantic. As I noted in the essay in question concerning progressives’ situational regulation, so too the Left also embraces situational free speech. Indeed, well before Williamson had even written his inaugural column, Jeffrey Goldberg, the editor of The Atlantic, had defended his hiring of Williamson on grounds that he preferred “all things being equal, to give people second chances and the opportunity to change,” and he further seemed delighted about Williamson’s promise to cease tweeting given that it would be interpreted as “a positive development and a sign of growth.”

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kevin-williamson-national-review-response-atlantic-piece/

Yeah, not gonna feel bad for him. I wouldn't want someone around who thought a whole bunch of my colleagues deserved to be killed either.

He can say what he wants, but that doesn't mean I have to work with him. Guess the Atlantic feels the same way.

Amy, if he was a guy who said Jews who served in the Israeli army should be executed, would you want to have him as an empoyee?

A liberal publication fired its token "conservative" for saying mean things about modern liberalism's most sacred of institutions, abortion. Nothing to see here. Just business as usual.

Goldberg's error was that he thought Williamson would
"grow", "develop" or "evolve" his views and writing in the new environment. Which means selling out your previous positions and regurgitating the pieties of the progressives.

I'm finding it hard to find much in terms of sympathy here. Williamson should have known what he was walking into, and perhaps should not have chastised other conservatives who are of the ilk of make the progressives live under the same rules they impose upon us.

Well, NicoleK, funny you should ask that. I give you Atlantic's currently most feted writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates:

Even as Kevin comes under fire it’s important to remember that The Atlantic’s currently most celebrated and influential writer is National Book Award winner and MacArthur genius grant recipient Ta-Nehisi Coates. And if you want to read provocative paragraphs, Coates is most certainly your man. This is what he said about the police and firefighters who sacrificed their lives in the desperate quest to save the men and women in the Twin Towers on September 11: “They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.”

The first responders of 9/11. Not human.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/the-sliming-of-kevin-williamson/

via

https://twitter.com/baseballcrank/status/981966358370975744

Your move, Goldberg. I have 100 quatloos that says Atlantic does nothing WRT Coates.

I have no idea what his quote means, but if the Atlantic wants to fire him I'd say they are well within their rights. Was he in the tower or something?

I have no idea what his quote means, but if the Atlantic wants to fire him I'd say they are well within their rights. Was he in the tower or something? ~ NicoleK at April 6, 2018 9:17 AM

Coates was explaining his view of the police after officers shot and killed an unarmed fellow Howard University alumnus. The quote was taken from his book, Between the World and Me.

From a New York Times review:

After Sept. 11, he writes that he could “see no difference between the officer” who had gunned down his Howard University schoolmate Prince Jones a year earlier — firing 16 shots at the unarmed young man, who was on his way to visit his fiancée — and the police and firefighters who lost their own lives in the terrorist attacks: “They were not human to me. Black, white, or whatever, they were menaces of nature; they were the fire, the comet, the storm, which could — with no justification — shatter my body.”

Hyperbole? Yes, definitely. His point was he could not see them as heroes in the wake of the shooting.

Randall Kennedy reviews Between the World and Me for The American Prospect and finds it wanting:

In my view, Between the World and Me is considerably less impressive than Coates’s typical blogs, op-ed pieces, and magazine articles—work that I often admire even when I am in disagreement with it. His book is afflicted by a pervasive rhetorical and conceptual laxity. He writes that Eric Garner was “choked to death for selling cigarettes.” Is that statement accurate? Did the officer choke Garner to death for selling cigarettes? Or did the officer, criminally over-reacting, choke Garner in order to subdue a suspect whom he perceived to be resisting arrest—an action that led to Garner’s death? Those two formulations portray actions that are leagues apart morally.

This just slipped over the wormhole-transom.

https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/293339/

Conan. To start, I've competed in Judo. I know chokes. I've been choked out in competition and I have choked out an opponent in competition. I was assaulted and choked out my assailant.
I watched the Garner video over and over. He was not choked. The officer's forearm was in the vicinity of his neck for seconds and was not braced by the other arm or a grasp on the clothing.
Garner was obese and his cardiopulmonary system was massively compromised. He died of heart failure caused by the exertion of the struggle.
"loosies" were a focus of both the governor and the mayor because they cost NY and NYC revenues from one of the highest cigarette tax regimes in the country.

THANK you, NicoleK.

Crid, here's a comment from what you linked to:

Jenks Miller
‏ @HorsebackNoise
21h21 hours ago
Replying to @jaynordlinger

"Nah, man. You can’t go around advocating for the execution of millions of women & expect to be taken seriously, let alone expect a paid public platform..."
____________________________________________

And in case anyone missed what I said in the other thread:

Wonder if (Williamson) would say that about his own daughter, if he had one? (If he would, I, for one, would consider him to be far more of a danger to his co-workers than a woman who hates men but doesn't advocate for killing those who are Law-Abiding. Even if he were "just joking," that hardly takes away from an employer's right to fire someone.)

For that matter, if you had a brilliant, college-bound sister, daughter, or granddaughter who said she was pregnant and was planning on getting an abortion, would you really try to stop her from getting RU-486, which can only be used up to 9 weeks after a woman's last period? (For those who don't know, that's typically only 7 weeks of pregnancy.) After all, there are good reasons single women typically don't choose adoption anymore when FORCED to give birth.

Amanda Marcotte wrote:

"Faced down with the toxic accusation that they are waging 'war on women,' anti-abortion activists try to have it both ways, arguing that abortion should be banned because it's 'murder' and that women getting an abortion should be 'protected.'

"Kudos to Kevin Williamson for telling the truth and abandoning the futile effort to ignore the contradiction."

Along similar lines, student government impeaches student for conservative views - https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=10738

He isn't advocating killing cops though, is he? If he is, I can see how having him work in an office with a bunch of cops would be a bad idea.

If they want to fire him now I think they are justified as well. That's up to them.

In a country where people sometimes go postal and shoot their co-workers, I can see how having someone say a good chunk of their co-workers should be killed might worry them.

Ben: It stems from the old witticism, liberals think conservatives are evil while conservatives think liberals are wrong.

Ben, I'd say it's probably true that a greater percentage of liberals think conservatives are evil, but, unlike you probably do, I don't think the percentage is that much higher than the percentage of conservatives who feel the same way about liberals.

As for the firing of Williamson, if he was fired "because of what his especially violent belief could mean for workplace relationships with female colleagues who may or may not have had an abortion", you'd think that would have been taken into account before hiring him in the first place.

As for abortion itself, in polls I've seen, the percentage of people who think that a woman should have an unrestricted right to an abortion isn't very high. And that's true among liberals as well as conservatives. Most people seem to feel that there is some point at which the right of the unborn child to live trumps the right of the mother to have control over her body. Where people differ is in where they see that point.

I've long felt that, regarding the two most hot-button issues for religious conservatives -- abortion and same-sex marriage -- they at least have a reasonable argument against abortion because it involves harming another being without their consent. With same-sex marriage, on the other hand, they have no such reasonable argument. Same-sex marriage involves consent. The two men or two women getting married aren't harming each other. "The Bible says it's wrong" is not a reasonable argument.

"Nah, man. You can’t go around advocating for the execution of millions of women & expect to be taken seriously, let alone expect a paid public platform..."

If we're going to advocate for the execution of people for intentionally taking the life of another, I'd say let's start with people like Dylan Roof, Nikolas Cruz and Shawn Berry/Lawrence Brewer/John King.
(Note: Lawrence Brewer was executed via lethal injection by the state of Texas on September 21, 2011...yay Texas!)

So, advocating for the death of someone with whom you disagree is bad? Got it.

And when will Kamala Harris be publicly castigated by The Atlantic?

> "Nah, man. You can’t go around
> advocating for the execution of
> millions of women & expect to be
> taken seriously, let alone expect
> a paid public platform..."

That's flamingly stupid.

Williamson is a rhetor. He composes and shares rhetoric. He's not running for office. He has no control over people's lives. He's using language to illuminate the distinctions we make about who we might allow to be killed and who we might not.

Anyone so eager to disregard irony in these discussions is probably not smart enough to vote, drive a car, or carry a library card. Their feelings were going to be hurt very early in any discussion, disqualifying them from further participation.

Lenona, I would certainly hope that you are not such a person....

I would add to what Crid said.

Williamson was not getting a "paid public platform." He was working for a magazine, a private endeavor whose objective is to turn a profit through selling regular issues, whether by subscription or at newsstands.

I admit I don't know that much about Williamson. All I know is, he's not known as a humorist. Though he IS a theatre critic.

But it's easy to imagine that even MALE employees might be pretty uncomfortable around someone who writes like that - and thus make things pretty awkward for any employer who DIDN'T fire Williamson. Plenty of men have helped their wives, girlfriends, or blood relatives get legal abortions, after all. So they could, in theory, be targeted for hanging or at least jail time too.

And re what Cathy Young said - yes, women can be fired (or at least disciplined) too, even if they only express their nasty views on social media under their real names and not in the workplace itself. However, if, as some have suggested on this blog, in the future, every rape must be reported the day it happens or the woman shouldn't get any public sympathy, then we shouldn't be surprised when women start reporting and demanding that coworkers be DISCIPLINED for every grope and nasty remark. Prevention is better than cure, right?

Btw, IF, before Roe vs. Wade, no one ever advocated that women should be executed for having an abortion, maybe that was only because so many women died from illegal abortions anyway. That would be (allegedly) less likely if Roe were overturned today. So it's not a legal subject to joke about.

"I'm a moderate, you see. If abortion is ever criminalized in this nation, I think only the abortionist (and not the mother) should face murder charges for poisoning, crushing, or dismembering a living child."

If abortion is murder, then why shouldn't the woman be prosecuted? If a woman hired a hit man to kill her 10 year old, she'd be charged with murder, so why should the doctor be the only one charged with a crime?