Too long, don't want to read:
.
"You've labelled me some trigger words and provided no proof that I am those things. You want to use these words to destroy my career - NOT because I'm bad or otherwise unqualified for my job, but because your ego is so fragile you can't comprehend allowing any viewpoint that isn't your own to exist.
.
Sounds pretty crazy, don't you think?
.
Maybe, before trying to destroy someone while claiming you're "stunning and brave," you should consider whether your actions are justified and/or reasonable.
.
Or just stop projecting on other people and get your head out of your ass. Your call."
Too short, not enough words: you can read his full exchange with this weird person who tried to get him fired here: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/0jPFq
.
Provides more context, and quite a few more paragraphs
Mike Rowe is most famous for being the host of the TV series "Dirty Jobs" - which features him attempting to take part in, and document, some of the dirtiest jobs in America. From things you'd expect like sewage workers, to things you've likely never heard of like working at a bone black factory, to digging thousands of square feet under the earth to build giant wine cellars. Honestly an interesting show.
.
He's also written a few books, and has narrated (and occasionally appeared on) a few other shows including "Deadliest Catch," and "how the universe works" (<- HTUW being the show someone was trying to get him fired from)
@iccarus he actually does a couple episodes of dirty jobs in Australia too. One of them is about jade mining (which is one of the few jobs he actually got nervous about).
.
The other was supposed to be meeting up with some Australian natives to fetch some wood to make a didgeridoo, but his guide had the attention span of a magpie at a button factory, and ended up taking them sting-ray fishing, sand-bread baking, and various other shenanigans as well.
.
Honestly the second one is one of my favourite episodes
Oh I didn't mean it aired in Australia, just meant he shot two episodes IN Australia, so if you ever feel inclined to seek it out, those episodes exist
The "anti-education" thing is because he has made comments that essentially say he doesn't believe we should be telling kids etc that a college degree is mandatory, and that the only jobs worth having require them.
.
He thinks it's a broken system to "lend money we don't have, to kids who can't pay it back, to train them for careers that no longer exist," -- especially when "less than 20% of jobs require a 4 year degree."
.
To be clear - he has nothing against people pursuing degrees or getting jobs that require them. He just also thinks that people have become so set in the idea that they are NECESSARY, they end up sabotaging themselves.
.
He's also a big proponent on the value of a hard day's work and that people become so focused on the idea that they MUST follow their dream, or they will be condemned to a life of misery. When in reality he says that most of the happiest people he's ever met work in some of the dirtiest jobs in the world
The anti-science thing is because one of the show's he narrates is about science. I don't know exactly what he said, but basically he made some comments between episodes that had something to do with the inaccuracies often seen in science, and how scientists had managed to get the number of galaxies out there wrong by a few trillion (or something).
.
This made the person he was addressing in these comments very annoyed for some reason. She decided that his comments meant he hates science and doesn't believe in it, and combined with his other viewpoints, this lead her to try and get the attention of the show itself to try and have him fired because he wasn't a scientist or "Morgan Freeman."
.
In reality he explains that the reason for his comments had nothing to do with mocking the scientists - he was literally making an observation about the scientific process, and how the data we have and what we THINK we know changes sometimes in a matter of moments.
He mentions how he will sometimes record entire episodes and within days they'll call him back in to re-record segments of the episodes, because the information they had about the subject had already become obsolete in that short of an amount of time.
.
If you want to read his full exchange with this particular woman (though it does not address the anti-education portion) you can see it here: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/0jPFq
.
Should note that this particular exchange happened back in 2018, though he has had run-ins with other nutjobs before and since then
Agreed BUT if your worldview causes you to discriminate against your coworkers, then there is a consideration to be made. For example, let's say you're a die-hard paleocon and you believe that women should stay at home and not work, and you happen to be in charge of recruiting for a company. Your worldview could in that case influence your job and you could be discriminating against your potential coworkers. The same applies to "woke" liberals who would only be hiring women and POC. In a position such as recruiting and HR in general, it's extremely difficult not to let your personal prejudices influence your work, but also your employer relies on your "gut" to help you hire the right people.
That said yes in most professions your worldview doesn't have anything to do with your work performance and should not be grounds for any disciplinary action.
In some ways that is arguably different. For one: you can't change your race or gender etc in any reasonable fashion just to get a job. [and for the love of god anyone reading this do NOT make this into an anti-trans post because you know exactly what I'm saying here, and it's not that.]
.
Plus If you simply don't hire someone because of something biological - but never make that known as the reason why - there's a decent chance they'll be able to go get a job somewhere else. But if you openly try and slag someone as having character flaws... Try to make the public believe they're a terrible person - and, even worse, that they CHOSE to be - so they not only lose the career they have, but likely no longer CAN get work elsewhere..
.
I'm not saying you're wrong at all, mind you. Just pointing out the split in the hair
That's a really good point actually, there's no way to tell whether someone is being prejudiced in their recruitment choices unless they at some point clearly voice their prejudice. Let's face it, it is impossible for a human being to be 100% objective, we all have prejudices. But when someone's just straight up racist and voices that opinion and maybe even says he/she doesn't hire people with a certain skin color, then that person isn't doing their job right because they're not choosing people based on merit but arbitrary characteristics, and probably should be at least transferred to a different position. There have even been studies some years ago that showed that "western" sounding names are a bit more likely to get the job than let's say an African sounding name, which suggests there is probably some widespread or even systemic prejudice. One way to tackle that would be anonymous recruitment wherever possible. Problem is, people lie on their CVs.
That said though I 100% agree that trying to destroy someone's career and prevent them from getting a job in the same field by smearing and "cancelling" is dirty and terrible. Nobody deserves to have their life ruined just for their opinions.
A well crafted and absolutely reasonable response from the side that ripped Pete Davidson a new asshole for daring to make a throwaway joke about Dan Crenshaw's missing eye, but has said nothing about Tucker Carlson characterizing Purple Heart awarded, double amputee, Afghan combat vet, Senator Tammy Duckworth, as a coward and hater of America. Guess there's idiots and hypocrites on both sides.
Crenshaw himself told people that it was funny, and Carlson is just another POS talking head, but Duckworth is wrong. Getting shot or blown up doesn't change that.
What sides are you even talking about?
.
He's on the side of people not destroying his ability to work in this post, and takes a stance on nothing else. Even in the full context of this conversation the only other thing he talks about is how fascinating science is. He doesn't make any stance on political views, doesn't touch on his thoughts on education.
.
It's literally: "science is fascinating; consider how psychotic your attempts to obliterate people who disagree with you is."
![The Ground You're Standing On Might Not Be Worth Defending [Mike Rowe on Cancel Culture]](/uploads/original/583/583437.jpg)
This relies on thought, logic, and evidence
Worryingly rare on social media/the Internet
.
"You've labelled me some trigger words and provided no proof that I am those things. You want to use these words to destroy my career - NOT because I'm bad or otherwise unqualified for my job, but because your ego is so fragile you can't comprehend allowing any viewpoint that isn't your own to exist.
.
Sounds pretty crazy, don't you think?
.
Maybe, before trying to destroy someone while claiming you're "stunning and brave," you should consider whether your actions are justified and/or reasonable.
.
Or just stop projecting on other people and get your head out of your ass. Your call."
.
Provides more context, and quite a few more paragraphs
.
He's also written a few books, and has narrated (and occasionally appeared on) a few other shows including "Deadliest Catch," and "how the universe works" (<- HTUW being the show someone was trying to get him fired from)
.
The other was supposed to be meeting up with some Australian natives to fetch some wood to make a didgeridoo, but his guide had the attention span of a magpie at a button factory, and ended up taking them sting-ray fishing, sand-bread baking, and various other shenanigans as well.
.
Honestly the second one is one of my favourite episodes
.
He thinks it's a broken system to "lend money we don't have, to kids who can't pay it back, to train them for careers that no longer exist," -- especially when "less than 20% of jobs require a 4 year degree."
.
To be clear - he has nothing against people pursuing degrees or getting jobs that require them. He just also thinks that people have become so set in the idea that they are NECESSARY, they end up sabotaging themselves.
.
He's also a big proponent on the value of a hard day's work and that people become so focused on the idea that they MUST follow their dream, or they will be condemned to a life of misery. When in reality he says that most of the happiest people he's ever met work in some of the dirtiest jobs in the world
.
This made the person he was addressing in these comments very annoyed for some reason. She decided that his comments meant he hates science and doesn't believe in it, and combined with his other viewpoints, this lead her to try and get the attention of the show itself to try and have him fired because he wasn't a scientist or "Morgan Freeman."
.
In reality he explains that the reason for his comments had nothing to do with mocking the scientists - he was literally making an observation about the scientific process, and how the data we have and what we THINK we know changes sometimes in a matter of moments.
.
If you want to read his full exchange with this particular woman (though it does not address the anti-education portion) you can see it here: https://m.imgur.com/gallery/0jPFq
.
Should note that this particular exchange happened back in 2018, though he has had run-ins with other nutjobs before and since then
That said yes in most professions your worldview doesn't have anything to do with your work performance and should not be grounds for any disciplinary action.
.
Plus If you simply don't hire someone because of something biological - but never make that known as the reason why - there's a decent chance they'll be able to go get a job somewhere else. But if you openly try and slag someone as having character flaws... Try to make the public believe they're a terrible person - and, even worse, that they CHOSE to be - so they not only lose the career they have, but likely no longer CAN get work elsewhere..
.
I'm not saying you're wrong at all, mind you. Just pointing out the split in the hair
.
He's on the side of people not destroying his ability to work in this post, and takes a stance on nothing else. Even in the full context of this conversation the only other thing he talks about is how fascinating science is. He doesn't make any stance on political views, doesn't touch on his thoughts on education.
.
It's literally: "science is fascinating; consider how psychotic your attempts to obliterate people who disagree with you is."