Okay folks, you all have been very kind over the last few days. I promise this account hasn't been highjacked. There's a lot going on & evangelical proximity to it is maddening.

But I promised you a thread about cancel culture, socioeconomics, & vocation.

First, let me say that I believe peer pressure & shunning happens in every social group. I believe the group can rally against the individual to force them comply w/ established norms & established powers. It is feature of human community.
So I don't disbelieve that something akin to "cancel culture" exists. But living in & ministering in working class spaces, I've never understood the emotion attached to popular iteration.
Sure, we talk about political correctness & the pressure to not say things, but the cancel culture narrative always felt imported somehow. Like, it wasn't organic to the way we moved thru the world.
So it's always puzzled me. The emotion that is. The fear. The panic of the woke mob coming for your job. Why is it framed this way? None of this made sense to me until I started mixing more w/ mid-upper class conservatives, particularly Xians.
Exhibit A: Lunch w/ a woman w/ college-aged children in private university who tells me how worried she is that they'll be black-balled at school & lose opportunities & career path.
Exhibit B: Anonymous commentors on Twitter who when I challenge their anonynimity tell me that they don't use their real names & pics b/c they're afraid they'll be fired for opinions that they share online.
Exhibit C: SENATOR Josh Hawley claiming a canceled book contract equates to loss of individual liberty & infringement of rights.
And all I can think is "Have you all never lost a job in your life? Have you never experienced work insecurity? What makes you believe that your position will be there tomorrow?"
Again, my point is not about the legitmacy of leveraging work against people. My point is that only a certain type of worker expects that their job will always be there (barring cancel culture of course). Only a certain level of worker thinks a career path is a right.
B/c where I live, work instability is more norm than not. And our own family has cycled thru 2-3 periods of unemployment brought about, ironically enough, by philosophy differences w/ CHURCHES that my husband pastored. (Ain't no cancel culture like church cancel culture amirite?)
So I'm no stranger to feeling the pressure to conform, to knowing that your beliefs might put you at odds w/ your employer, to facing the loss of work & income for speaking truthfully.
But my empathy for the dilemma doesn't mean that I share the assumption that we're owed work or that our children are owed a certain career path. (I say this carefully b/c I know the devastation that our own family has experienced when career dreams are shattered.)
And this I think is a significant blindspot of the faith & work conversation: What happens when you're locked out of the C-Suite? What happens when you can't expect a certain career or that work will be there tomorrow?
A robust theology of vocation teaches us that we'll be okay. It teaches us that we work "as unto the Lord" & that "my God shall supply my every need." A robust theolgy of vocation rests not on a certain career path but on a certain God.
In this respect, I simply cannot share the panic I see among conservative Christians regarding cancel cutlure. Does it exist? Sure. Every community, every culture has ways of policing its boundaries. The Q is whether I should fear it.
I do not. B/c I know that ultimately my calling & vocation is sure w/ the Almighty. If *he* calls me to speak things that set me at odds w/ my employer or publisher, I best obey him & not them.
And this I think is another part of the dilemma: Too many of us want impunity to say & do whatever WE want, not whatever we're called to. We have become our own masters & none shall master us. But this is not the way of Christ, either.
What we do & what we say is direct by the One we're called to serve. And if HE calls you to speak truths that go against your cultural norms--whether in the church or outside--you can better believe that he'll preserve you as you obey him. BUT...
As the Apostle Peter wrote, make sure "none of you suffer as a murderer, or as a thief, or as an evildoer, or as a busybody in other men's matters" (I Peter 4:15)

2021 version: Don't get canceled b/c you did something that deserves cancelling.
IN SUMMARY:

Work is good, but no one owes you a career path. Live peacefully w/ all men, & be willing to go against the flow when necessary. Protect your integrity & know that your God will supply your needs.

But don't be a jerk b/c if you are, that's on you.

More from Society

This is a piece I've been thinking about for a long time. One of the most dominant policy ideas in Washington is that policy should, always and everywhere, move parents into paid labor. But what if that's wrong?

My reporting here convinced me that there's no large effect in either direction on labor force participation from child allowances. Canada has a bigger one than either Romney or Biden are considering, and more labor force participation among women.

But what if that wasn't true?

Forcing parents into low-wage, often exploitative, jobs by threatening them and their children with poverty may be counted as a success by some policymakers, but it’s a sign of a society that doesn’t value the most essential forms of labor.

The problem is in the very language we use. If I left my job as a New York Times columnist to care for my 2-year-old son, I’d be described as leaving the labor force. But as much as I adore him, there is no doubt I’d be working harder. I wouldn't have stopped working!

I tried to render conservative objections here fairly. I appreciate that @swinshi talked with me, and I'm sorry I couldn't include everything he said. I'll say I believe I used his strongest arguments, not more speculative ones, in the piece.

You May Also Like

Trending news of The Rock's daughter Simone Johnson's announcing her new Stage Name is breaking our Versus tool because "Wrestling Name" isn't in our database!

Here's the most useful #Factualist comparison pages #Thread 🧵


What is the difference between “pseudonym” and “stage name?”

Pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie stars,” while stage name is “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/hT5XPkTepy #english #wiki #wikidiff

People also found this comparison helpful:

Alias #versus Stage Name: What’s the difference?

Alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while stage name means “the pseudonym of an entertainer.”

https://t.co/Kf7uVKekMd #Etymology #words

Another common #question:

What is the difference between “alias” and “pseudonym?”

As nouns alias means “another name; an assumed name,” while pseudonym means “a fictitious name (more literally, a false name), as those used by writers and movie

Here is a very basic #comparison: "Name versus Stage Name"

As #nouns, the difference is that name means “any nounal word or phrase which indicates a particular person, place, class, or thing,” but stage name means “the pseudonym of an
The YouTube algorithm that I helped build in 2011 still recommends the flat earth theory by the *hundreds of millions*. This investigation by @RawStory shows some of the real-life consequences of this badly designed AI.


This spring at SxSW, @SusanWojcicki promised "Wikipedia snippets" on debated videos. But they didn't put them on flat earth videos, and instead @YouTube is promoting merchandising such as "NASA lies - Never Trust a Snake". 2/


A few example of flat earth videos that were promoted by YouTube #today:
https://t.co/TumQiX2tlj 3/

https://t.co/uAORIJ5BYX 4/

https://t.co/yOGZ0pLfHG 5/