Rollingstone – Warum Kultur absagen, ist gut für Demokratie
Rollingstone – Die Menschen verlieren ihre Arbeit, um die ermordete „Redefreiheit“ -Verspritzer Charlie Kirk zu kritisieren
Von External-Noise-4832
Rollingstone – Warum Kultur absagen, ist gut für Demokratie
Rollingstone – Die Menschen verlieren ihre Arbeit, um die ermordete „Redefreiheit“ -Verspritzer Charlie Kirk zu kritisieren
Von External-Noise-4832
25 Kommentare
Since the advent of social media people have been fired for posting insane shit under their own name. If I went on my personal Facebook and posted a bunch of Pro-Hitler shit, I would probably get fired and deservedly so bc I’m a liability for my employer
Even the headline is dishonest.
It’s not about criticism but supporting his murder.
To be fair, the right headline doesn’t say whether it’s right or wrong
Free speech doesn’t mean free of consequences! You can say whatever you’d like but your job can fire you and people can sue you.
**Submission Statement**
Rolling Stone’s two-faced stance on cancel culture screams calculated bias. Their 2023 piece hails it as a noble tool to shut down people like J.K. Rowling, but by 2025, they’re whining about people losing jobs for dissing Charlie Kirk. They swing cancel culture like a club to enforce their narrative, then play victim when the mob bites back. It’s a dirty double game, exposing The Rolling Stone for pulling strings to shape the narrative while pretending to be fair.
I said it when people were getting cancelled over George Floyd. I’ll say it again. It’s bullshit. Free speech is an idea, not a law. If you’re okay with censorship now, you’re okay with the free suppression of ideas.
If you think it’s okay, you are not in favor of free speech. If you’re doing it to own the libs, you care more about partisan politics than any sort of real values.
I’m not defending cancel culture in any way, shape, or form. But the left article seems to be about holding those **in power** accountable and the other is about regular Joe schmoes getting canned for expressing opinions. I wouldn’t consider that very hypocritical.
Edit, maybe OP will understand if I use AI like they did. I encourage you to engage with the content here as it makes a lot of sense if you actually read the articles (which I imagine OP didn’t). I’m absolutely open to discussion.
These Rolling Stone articles represent two distinct and legitimate conversations about accountability in different contexts, not hypocrisy. The 2023 piece examines the broader cultural phenomenon of „cancel culture“ as a form of social accountability, while the 2025 article specifically addresses workplace retaliation against employees for their political views. These are fundamentally different situations that deserve different analysis.
Different Contexts, Different Stakes
The 2023 article discusses public accountability for public figures who make controversial statements that affect vulnerable communities. When someone with a massive platform like J.K. Rowling faces criticism for statements about transgender people, that’s a discussion about the social consequences of speech that impacts real people’s lives and safety.
The 2025 article, conversely, focuses on employees facing job termination for expressing political opinions – a workplace rights issue that intersects with free speech protections and economic security. The article doesn’t defend Charlie Kirk’s views but questions whether people should lose their livelihoods for political disagreement.
Consistency in Principles, Not Outcomes
Rolling Stone’s position is actually quite consistent: they support accountability for harmful speech while opposing disproportionate economic punishment for political views. The magazine distinguishes between social criticism (which they view as legitimate democratic discourse) and employment-based retaliation (which they see as potentially chilling to open dialogue).
This isn’t about protecting conservatives or attacking progressives – it’s about recognizing that workplace termination represents a different level of consequence than social media criticism or boycotts.
Nuanced Journalism, Not Agenda-Driven Reporting
Rather than revealing bias, these articles demonstrate Rolling Stone’s willingness to engage with complex issues from multiple angles. Good journalism doesn’t require taking identical stances on superficially similar situations. The magazine is grappling with the genuine tension between social accountability and free expression – a conversation our democracy needs.
The real story here isn’t hypocrisy but thoughtful engagement with how we balance competing values in different contexts. Rolling Stone deserves credit for not defaulting to simplistic talking points but instead wrestling with the genuine complexities of speech, power, and consequence in modern America.
The radical left is celebrating and glorifying someone being shot for using free speech… but upset that they are getting fired from their jobs for using free speech… do they hear themselves talking?
I don’t want to work with a person who cheers on a full-on assassination. Fuck them. If they want to post how they disagree with someone’s views, which in Kirk’s case were vile, hypocritical (as a so-called Christian) and disgusting, that’s totally cool. But celebrating a cold-blooded murder says vastly different things about someone’s character and is just as vile and disgusting as the views they hated Kirk for. I don’t know why it’s so hard for people to spot the difference. And I definitely don’t understand how people could be so obtuse to think it’s okay to post it on social media. Darwin award material for sure.
People making excuses for this level of hypocrisy are compromised already
And people getting fired celebrated someone’s death. Apparently hospitals, schools, and
other places that deal with the public don’t like employees doing that
The media is culpable for fan the flames of discord. They intentionally misguide through sawed off context and a failure to understand points that are different than their narrative.
They’re considering editing the title of the first article. „Cancelling the right is a good thing“
They were supporting his death , that’s a bad thing to do nonetheless whoever dies it doesn’t matter if the person is right wing left wing neutral etc
did they delete both of these?
It’s good if only they benefit from it
it’s gunna get to the point where ignorance is the most employable trait. Just like Orwell predicted
I read a book one time that was kinda like that. Idk how it’s called but it’s title is a year
People really need to accept it’s State Media across the board, with the purpose of controlled messaging, controlled opposition, and manipulative division and distraction.
This has been base reality for many decades now!
Well there it is
Free speech absolutists in shambles at the moment. What’s JD got say about this. If I remember correctly he was just shitting on Europe for this same thing.
The message always changes depending on who it favors.
They’re straight up bolsheviks.
We need a Communist Control Act of 2025
Ignore everything the man stood for and be the better person or lose your job.
Eh they’re op ed opinion pieces and the media just posts them. It’s us that tends to put them on blast and take them to extremes
But surely you see the hypocrisy of this from the other angle too, right? It’s what’s made me stopped caring about any of the shit to begin with. Became just like Rolling Stone are being hypocrites here, so are all the “free speech warriors” rushing to tattle tale and get people fired for making light of that big headed dork dying. And it’s like this on every single topic. You all just react and cheer for your team and shape your worldview based on whatever thoughts feel like they’ll “own the libs” better.