I Was Censored for Talking About Right-Wing Cancel Culture.

[Lunabell]

For the first time in my life, I was canceled during a corporate keynote speech for talking about right-wing cancel culture.

Earlier in the week, a tech company’s Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) team invited me to address their employees to celebrate Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month, which ended in May. I lasted all of five and a half minutes before the Zoom meeting abruptly ended without a warning or any follow-up messages, texts, or calls from company personnel.

I assumed it was a technical glitch. I spent 15 minutes trying to log back on but to no avail. After an hour and two emails, a member from the DEI committee finally replied and told me they ended the Zoom due to “internal issues.” That was the first and last communication I received. They initially didn’t even inform their employees, several of whom messaged me on Twitter over the next two days asking if I was censored for my comments.


https://www.thedailybeast.com/i-was-canceled-for-talking-about-right-wing-cancel-culture

[Tetrachloride]

1. From now on, have a backup plan.

Google Meet or a separate Zoom where “you” are the host, not the corporation.

Telegram or WhatsApp or Youtube?

The corporations will keep doing it.

[BlackSkimmer]

17. I don't think it's the OP who had this issue.

The article at the link tells you who was involved.

[Tetrachloride]

19. Yes, but it may happen to any of us. Zoom is vulnerable to

disruption. If the Zoom host disconnects or is malicious, the entire meeting can be lost instantly.

[relayerbob]

2. Censorship is a government function

Every private organization has the right to pull the plug on anyone they want, snd it happens all the time. Unfortunate in this case, but I’m truly sick of people claiming “censorship”. Since there is little real context here, including who the audience was, and what exactly the speaker was doing, including whether the author is actually telling the truth, I’d take all with a large bucket of salt.

[reymega life]

3. PRIVATE ORGANASIATIONS NEED TO BE TREATED AS NGOS THEN

since they are trying to meddle in our civilization.

[grantcart]

6. NGOs are private organisations

[hippywife]

5. That's not true.

https://www.aclu.org/other/what-censorship

What is a simple definition of censorship?

Censorship, the suppression of words, images, or ideas that are "offensive," happens whenever some people succeed in imposing their personal political or moral values on others. Censorship can be carried out by the government as well as private pressure groups.

Censorship is one of those words that requires a qualifier, i.e. government censorship

[Lunabell]

8. Did you read the article?

The whole context and audience was in the article plain as day.

[Ocelot II]

12. There is no First Amendment protection from censorship by private entities,

but that doesn't mean it isn't censorship, which is simply the suppression or prohibition of any parts of books, films, news, etc. that are considered offensive in some fashion. The government can't legally censor most speech, while a private company can do so without legal jeopardy. But it's still censorship and can be called out as such, and private individuals are also entitled to respond as they desire.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

4. Trying to figure out exactly how a corporate keynote speech is the right place for pontificating

on the subject of 'cancel-culture'?

Even when the context is to "celebrate Asian American Pacific Islander Heritage Month".

This is really not censorship, at least, not that which is of the kind protected by the 1A

Also, it's helpful to readers to employ the excerpt tag when quoting articles so it's clear that this is text from a different source than the writer of the OP

[Lunabell]

7. Did you even read the whole article?

There was no "pontificating".

[Hugh_Lebowski]

9. Naw, I didn't really care enough tbh because corporate keynote speeches aren't 1A protected

Also forget I said 'pontificating' and pretend I said 'talking about', as is in the headline.

Now what's the argument?

[Lunabell]

10. Nobody said anything about "1A".

It wasn't even mentioned. No argument. I just think before someone criticizes an article, they should at least read it. But, that's just an opinion.

[Doc Sportello]

16. Your use of pontificating was pejorative

Here's the definition:
"To express one's opinions in a way considered annoyingly pompous and dogmatic."

Your characterization of it in this way was a dig and an incorrect one at that. Your dismissive reply didn't help your case either.

[Hugh_Lebowski]

22. Yes, but pontificating is context-sensitive don't you think?

Either the person was pontificating in the situation, or the headline was inaccurate click-bait.

Which is a phenomenon I oft-lament.

Not blaming the OP to be clear.

[Doc Sportello]

23. I read the article and there was no pontification

The poster asked if you read the article. It seems from your responses you didn't. I also don't think the headline could be called clickbait. He believed he was shut down because of his words and the responses he got from employees certainly make that claim believable. Yes, there is too much inaccurate headlines on here but I don't think that was one.

[BlackSkimmer]

18. Well stated, and thank you. nt

[republianmushroom]

11. The truth kicks butt

they didn't want their butts kicked.

[Lunabell]

13. It's pretty ironic.

The diversity, equity and inclusion team did not want to hear about the causation or remedies to fix the problem. "Nothing to see here. Move it along. We've identified a problem, but don't plan to fix it."

[JHB]

14. How does one read the article without setting up an account?

There doesn't seem to be a "free for X number of articles" or "with ads" or other option to let one read it without setting up an account at Daily Beast. And I don't want to do that.

So where is the article accessible if we need to read the whole thing to get the proper context?

[SharonClark]

15. I could read it without setting up an account.

PLUS, Lunabell should have indicated that the entire post was a quote and not LB’s opinion.

[JHB]

20. That wasn't my experience.

I couldn't read the full article without setting up an account. And so I didn't. Considering some of your responses in this thread, perhaps you might consider relying less on the original article and expanding your own viewpoint and doing more time "going with the flow...

[Lunabell]

21. The link should've been a giveaway.