[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

For someone who admitted previously that there seemed to be a pretty healthy nuance and range of opinions, I find the constant reliance on guilting "society" with this or saying "everyone who is ok with this must also want this entirely separate thing" pretty exhausting, honestly.

I still see a healthy range of opinions. I'm suspicious of yours, because you seem to want to be able to say "these are deserved consequences", while at the same time saying, "I'm just not rooting for him, I'm not calling for anything specifically bad to happen to him". I don't see that as very honest.

When I say, "everyone who is okay with this", I'm clearly referring to those among the healthy range of opinions who hold the opinion that this is okay - that this outcome was deserved. In this case, those people won the day. They got what they were after. I don't see how that's contradictory. Those people presumably want similar consequences for other people in similar circumstances. That is not "this entirely separate thing", it's the logical outcome. Stop lying about my position. In particular:

I get you and a couple others want to make this about cancel culture, or the mob, or the internet, or the will of society. But I find it to be performatively intellectual at best.

Don't try to lump me in with other posters and mix my views in with theirs. That's slimy, mendacious crap. I speak for myself and only for myself. And I'm pretty sure I've never used the words "cancel culture" in this thread. I don't see this as the same thing. He didn't lose his job and life because of his views or something he said or some minor error. He committed a heinous act that was subject to legal consequences. Whether those legal consequences should have been publicly known is a question that has been debated in this thread, but that's a separate issue.

Certainly, internet mob justice is at issue here - can anyone deny that with a straight face? Does anyone think that absent the internet mob calling for harsh sanctions, this would have happened? Come on.

My view here is pretty simple: given the information we have about the acts committed, the impact on the victim, the age of the perpetrator, his actions since that time, the punishment he has received (at the time and now), and what's likely to happen to him going forward, I think the punishment was overly severe. I think that's generally true in cases where an internet mob gets involved. I wouldn't want this sort of outcome to be the rule in cases like this. That's really it. It's not a complicated point of view, nor is it "performative". That's kind of a ridiculous thing to accuse me of given what I've posted in here.

Guy spent half his childhood torturing someone which was publicly available information, bad PR logically followed, organizations that rely on PR cut ties. PR is not new... we're aware of this, yes? Aware of the consequences of bad PR? Aware that Miller's history is a classic definition of "bad PR"? Any questions?

You really do love to lazily oversimplify things in a way that flatters your position. I'm not sure why you think it's rhetorically effective, though. Maybe try characterizing them in the worst possible light for your view, instead, just as an exercise. It will be just as easy to do.