For the Charlie Kirk thing, I don't have any specific video or anything in mind. When I was trying to research the context of things he had said about women, though, it never had to do with women being servants or whatever. -Paul
https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/10/03/jay-jones-faces-bipartisan-criticism-following-alleged-controversial-text-messages/ I’m unclear on what taking “full accountability” or full responsibility” would mean in this context. So far “Oh gee I’m sorry” doesn’t feel like enough, but expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also… - mig
paul: "the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. Seems like that's worth being concerned about" here we agree. i don't like that kirk was killed. and i do respect kirk for trying to go to college campuses and having open debates there. and it does concern me he was (more or less) killed for something he was saying in those debates. ~a
paul: "it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position" do you have an example of this too? other than robinson, most of the people i can see abandoning the pro-freedom of speech position are pro-maga (or otherwise very-pro-trump). not anti-maga. ~a
paul: "he's a believer in traditional family roles" do you have a place where he talks about this i can read / hear? every place i've seen him talk about traditional family values, it seems to be at the expense of women? ~a
a: Seems like that's worth being concerned about. -Paul
a: "I'm pro freedom of speech" I am too, and it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position. Disagreeable positions or not, the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. -Paul
a: And sure, that last one is because of her husband's death, but it sounds like she had a bunch of other endeavors beyond just submitting to her husband. -Paul
I feel like that is what Bjorn Lomborg has been saying for years? Decades? And largely been mocked for it. -Paul
https://www.cnn.com/2025/10/28/business/bill-gates-climate-change "Although climate change will have serious consequences [...] it will not lead to humanity’s demise. This is a chance to refocus on the metric that should count even more than emissions and temperature change: improving lives. Our chief goal should be to prevent suffering, particularly for those in the toughest conditions who live in the world’s poorest countries." -Paul
a: https://www.ft.com/content/af4472e0-c0a3-4dca-bb29-bab4f969b624 Sounds like Milei's reforms will continue. How are you feeling about our non-bet so far? -Paul
a: Regardless, my whole point wasn't that companies aren't legally allowed to fire people for cancel culture reasons. It was more about if that's how things should work. I'm not super excited about the prospect of a future where we need to be posting voting histories on resumes and having political donations brought up on PIPs. -Paul
a: Yes, he technically resigned, but does that distinction matter when it comes to cancel culture? He resigned because he saw the writing on the wall, not because he didn't want to be CEO anymore. Also, that technicality seems contradicted by your next statement: "but even if they did want to fire him they had cause" Is a political donation sufficient for cause? -Paul
a: A CEO technically does represent your company too, but I think they typically are hired for other skillsets which make them harder to replace. -Paul
a: "your ceo is gonna represent you in the market" That's a fair way to look at it, but I think of it a bit differently. A spokesperson's sole job is to represent the company, and in theory it can be pretty easy to replace one. I guess I was thinking of like a press secretary for a Presidential administration or maybe Jared from Subway. -Paul
paul: regardless, the whole thing is atypical. ceos very rarely resign after donating to make gay marriage straight up illegal. ~a
paul: he wasn't fired. he resigned. they even offered him another job in the company. but even if they did want to fire him they had cause. As you yourself said, "The appointment triggered widespread criticism": it wasn't the donation of a line-worker. it was a value-misalignment of a ceo. it was the appointment that started it all. ~a
paul: you just implied that the bar for an "official spokesperson" is higher (or maybe that the bar for firing an "official spokesperson" is lower) right? who's more of an official spokesperson than a ceo? your ceo is gonna represent you in the market so usually your cut them off if they have a past that doesn't align with your (mozilla's) values as a company. that happened here, so he resigned. ~a
a: And I know he wasn't a software engineer (my example was kind of a mash-up of James Damore and Brendan Eich). That's why I asked which part seemed.... untypical? -Paul
a: "brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier" Really? Why did he lose it, then? From wikipedia: "The appointment triggered widespread criticism due to Eich's past political donations – specifically, a 2008 donation of $1,000 to California Proposition 8" -Paul
paul: no i didn't call it implausible. i said it was not typical or common, and brendan eich didn't lose his job because of a political donation from six years earlier, and brendan eich wasn't a software engineer. ~a
a: "i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign" Which part seems implausible? Because Brendan Eich lost his job because of a political donation from 6 years earlier. -Paul
this seems akin to a much smaller version of refusing to leave the whitehouse on inauguration day. ~a
is it legal to completely refuse to seat someone? she was duly elected in . . . september? can you just wait indefinitely? why not just refuse to seat everybody who is of a different party? ~a
paul: i don't think a software engineer will typically lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to the trump campaign. ~a
paul: "embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives" i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here, and i don't think his killer cares much about who is or isn't a trad-wife. ~a
a: But should a software engineer lose their job because 10 years ago they donated to Trump's campaign or maybe were caught on video singing a rap song that contained a racial slur? Maybe not? -Paul
a: It's a messy grey area, though, because obviously it's fine for there to be consequences for especially repugnant speech. Does a company want it's official spokesperson openly being homophobic or racist on social media? No... -Paul
a: If you might lose your job for expressing a political opinion, I think that has a chilling effect on free speech. -Paul
a: "cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech" I would disagree. They might have nothing to do with the first amendment, but I think they are very related to a culture of free speech. -Paul
a: "i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice." 100% The right has never been great on the issue and Trump specifically is uniquely awful. I did not intend any of this to be a defense of the right: "For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it" -Paul
a: Is it inconsistent? Maybe. Most people's views on most things are. The limited stuff I've seen indicates a fairly consistent Christian based worldview that embraces women being free to do what they want but also thinking they SHOULD be trad-wives. -Paul
a: I don't know nearly enough about Kirk to give you an educated answer on his thoughts on traditional family values or whatnot. I'm literally just learning snippets based on videos I'm watching during research into points you've made. -Paul
in other news this has been live for almost 24 hours and still hasn't been deleted. ~a
do we? paul, do you think what carr did was bad? worse than what we saw from the Biden administration and google/twitter after trump's COVID? worse than cancel culture? worse than micro aggressions? worse than the aclu measuring harm when deciding who to defend? ~a
a: bringing up kimmel at the time would not have been interesting discussion. we all agree it was bad! - mig
mig/paul: jawboning isn't illegal. it sucks. but it's not illegal. the many things carr posted to twitter, though were not legal. you get upset by the legal things the ACLU does and the legal jawboning Biden does but when it comes to the illegal twitter posts carr makes related to kimmel strangely enough, it's crickets. ~a
I took a quick look at the ACLU press releases to see if they had anything to say about the google jawboning but strangely enough its crickets. Plenty to say about Jimmy Kimmel though. - mig
attempts to justify it (lives need to be saved!) - mig
And while cancel culture, micro-aggressions, and the like are not about government restrictions on speech I do believe it did start to change the attitudes of the democratic party and progressives at large. As paul noted, the ACLU suddenly decided some free speech wasn’t worth speaking up for. And we get a revelation about the Biden admin suppressing speech and the general reaction from democrats is either crickets or …
a: I would argue that in times of crisis it’s even more important that we not be tolerant of the government jawboning to suppress speech. The Covid era essentially provided a sort of blasphemy policy - Thou shall mot question our approved “experts”. - mig
paul: cancel culture and micro-aggressions have nothing to do with the freedom of speech. maybe you also assume the freedom of speech grants you the freedom of consequences to your speech? i'd personally say that the supreme court uses the first amendment to go too far, but i think the first amendment is fine as written: specifically the first amendment is fucking bastardized to force tax breaks for churches. ~a
paul: "do you disagree that that has changed?" yes, i do. miguel's reason link has great examples of biden jawboning, so i'm a bit on the fence at times. but then, at other times i remember that trump jawbones as a standard practice. and the intent is relevant: trump jawboning is about making his legacy seem great. and biden jawbones because seven million people were dying. ~a
paul: but, i should take the time to thank you for finding those words. at least it wasn't all bullshit. ~a
paul: "at the very least it's nuanced" i wouldn't use the word nuanced. i'd use the word inconsistent. his views in that moment were very nuanced: i agree 100%. not progressive, but at least nuanced. but his views in many other moments lacked nuance: in conclusion he was inconsistent. ~a
paul: "Is it the most modern thinking?" dude i'm not arguing against traditional thinking here. nobody is. kirk was not killed because he thought some women should voluntarily be homemakers. do you guys seriously think that i think women shouldn't be allowed to become homemakers? ~a
https://reason.com/2025/09/24/google-says-biden-admin-pressured-company-to-remove-content feels relevant. also w-e-i-r-d the lack of mainstream reporting on this revelation, given all the handwringing over Jimmy Kimmel, since this seems far more consequential. - mig
https://www.thefire.org/news/poll-majority-americans-believe-first-amendment-goes-too-far-rights-it-guarantees More Democrats than Republicans believe "that the First Amendment goes too far in the rights it guarantees" -Paul
a: Hate speech and micro-aggressions started on the left. Pressure on social media companies did too. Cancel culture. Rock and roll, the cola wars, I can't take it anymore! -Paul
a: But at the same time it seemed like we could count on the left to be reliably pro-freedom of speech. Do you disagree that that has changed? The ACLU now weighs the potential harm of speech in terms of whether it will defend it... -Paul
a: For the freedom of speech comment, I wasn't saying the right was necessarily better on it. Traditionally, the right has been the side to want to ban Harry Potter and flag burning and whatnot... -Paul
a: Again, not exactly progressive, but if anything it sounds like in his vision of the family the happiness of the family generally comes at the expense of the men. At the very least it's nuanced. -Paul
And a quote from Charlie: "You do not spend a dime on video games or sports games or things for yourself until your wife does not have to worry about finances. You come last in the family when it comes to finances, period. That is your job. Your wife gets whatever she wants, whatever she wants. The kids get whatever they want..." -Paul
One quote that was pulled out from his wife was: "He is the head of the house household and I am not a servant, I am not a slave to the master, I am his helpmate. I am the guardian of the home—that is my domain." -Paul
a: Is it the most modern thinking? No. But it also seems pretty far from any kind of "women are inferior and should just be slaves to men" kind of thing. I asked AI this question and it directed me to a video called "The Keys to a Thriving Marriage And Meaningful Life" -Paul
a: All the stuff seems to be relatively mundane "traditional family values" stuff like how men should work and provide food and shelter and whatnot and the woman should be helping raise the kids and supporting the family. -Paul
a: "do you have an example of this too?" Citations needed? For the Charlie Kirk thing, I don't have any specific video or anything in mind. When I was trying to research the context of things he had said about women, though, it never had to do with women being servants or whatever. -Paul
https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/10/03/jay-jones-faces-bipartisan-criticism-following-alleged-controversial-text-messages/ I’m unclear on what taking “full accountability” or full responsibility” would mean in this context. So far “Oh gee I’m sorry” doesn’t feel like enough, but expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also… - mig
paul: "the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. Seems like that's worth being concerned about" here we agree. i don't like that kirk was killed. and i do respect kirk for trying to go to college campuses and having open debates there. and it does concern me he was (more or less) killed for something he was saying in those debates. ~a
paul: "it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position" do you have an example of this too? other than robinson, most of the people i can see abandoning the pro-freedom of speech position are pro-maga (or otherwise very-pro-trump). not anti-maga. ~a
paul: "he's a believer in traditional family roles" do you have a place where he talks about this i can read / hear? every place i've seen him talk about traditional family values, it seems to be at the expense of women? ~a
a: Seems like that's worth being concerned about. -Paul
a: "I'm pro freedom of speech" I am too, and it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position. Disagreeable positions or not, the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. -Paul
a: And sure, that last one is because of her husband's death, but it sounds like she had a bunch of other endeavors beyond just submitting to her husband. -Paul
For the Charlie Kirk thing, I don't have any specific video or anything in mind. When I was trying to research the context of things he had said about women, though, it never had to do with women being servants or whatever. -Paul
https://www.wsls.com/news/local/2025/10/03/jay-jones-faces-bipartisan-criticism-following-alleged-controversial-text-messages/ I’m unclear on what taking “full accountability” or full responsibility” would mean in this context. So far “Oh gee I’m sorry” doesn’t feel like enough, but expecting Jones to drop over this might be unreasonable also… - mig
paul: "the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. Seems like that's worth being concerned about" here we agree. i don't like that kirk was killed. and i do respect kirk for trying to go to college campuses and having open debates there. and it does concern me he was (more or less) killed for something he was saying in those debates. ~a
paul: "it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position" do you have an example of this too? other than robinson, most of the people i can see abandoning the pro-freedom of speech position are pro-maga (or otherwise very-pro-trump). not anti-maga. ~a
paul: "he's a believer in traditional family roles" do you have a place where he talks about this i can read / hear? every place i've seen him talk about traditional family values, it seems to be at the expense of women? ~a
a: Seems like that's worth being concerned about. -Paul
a: "I'm pro freedom of speech" I am too, and it's disturbed me how much the left seems to have abandoned that position. Disagreeable positions or not, the man's whole mission was having open debate on college campuses and he was killed for it. -Paul
a: And sure, that last one is because of her husband's death, but it sounds like she had a bunch of other endeavors beyond just submitting to her husband. -Paul