> You're talking about destroying freedom of association and expression in order to root out reprehensible people with the wrong values
We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.
It's not about shaming anyone since most of the people targeted don't give a crap about the opinions of the wokes and the woke-adjacent.
Right now the target is to deprive them of employment. You can at the very least be honest about it.
That only works when you have mob behind you. What will you do when you find yourself disagreeing with the majority and they apply this technique to you?
Shame them for their bad behavior. It does not matter how many of them there are. It does not matter if I am the only person in the world who knows what right behavior is, I still must follow my conscience.
That's not how shaming works. If you try to shame someone who doesn't think they've done anything wrong, which will be case in this hypothetical scenario, they will not feel shame. They'll just think you are wrong. If a mob of people engages in public shaming, you probably still won't make that person feel shame, but you can cause them to feel humiliated and isolated and so likely silence them, along with others who might have otherwise agreed with them publicly.
Shaming is a way of silencing people who disagree with you and that only works if you do it as a mob. Otherwise you're just making yourself feel good by expressing your disapproval. Mob shaming at least accomplishes something, individual shaming is just a lazy substitute for persuasion.
Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due good deeds a "good person"? Would you call someone who's primary goal is to due reprehensible deeds a "reprehensible person"?
People certainly can change over time, but someone's state at a given time is what that person actually is at the time.
That's an excuse to dehumanize people. Labeling people rather than deeds is simply an announcement that you're willing to compromise your own ethics in order to attack that person. It's what's really happening when we label people as terrorists.
As pharrington points out, your words imply that you agree with me that terrorists are reprehensible people, or you are trying to argue that terrorists don't actually exist. Which is it?
We all have a strong moral obligation to root out "reprehensible people with the wrong values." If you think otherwise then you don't understand what the word "reprehensible" means.