I doubt Darwin would have anything to worry about today. If his paper actually got any attention on social media at all, it would not go against any of the beliefs of the companies on social media. Frankly, given some of the things that regularly get said about groups of people, Darwin really wouldn't be that controversial. It was more problematic in his age. Heck, since 1950, even the Catholic Church acknowledges Darwin[1] and says there is no conflict.
Which group would get Darwin fired?
The simplest and best reply to the Darwin tweet is this
https://twitter.com/paraschopra/status/1068462375970443264
> Today’s Darwin would be like the original Darwin. > Someone with FU money, not dependent on grants,
EDIT: added quote
Very strange post title. Is there context I'm missing?
I think it's purposely generic to encompass many examples, besides the one that's most recent?
Why would you think that the tweet is about MLH? He made these remarks during a speech, not on social media, though I'm sure the social media storm was notable.
FWIW, I always found him insufferable and strident. He cuts people off he doesn't agree with, yells at them, and engages people in uncivil and boorish ways. He should have been fired for that reason alone.
His tweet is pretty dumb on pretty much every level. People publishing uncoventional and unpopular ideas on twitter get booked on speaking tours, collect money from patreon and publish best-selling books. Being an alt-right provocateur is a pretty good gig, all considered.
The idiots getting fired for stuff they said on twitter are almost all out and out racists and bigots who had nothing interesting or important to say.
For the uninformed, Marc Lamont Hill is a university professor and CNN contributor who was fired from CNN yesterday after his speech to the United Nations in which he argued for "a free Palestine from the river to the sea" (meaning the Jordan river to the Mediterranean sea).[0]
That phrase has been repeatedly used[1] by Hamas and other terrorist organizations calling for the eradication of Israel and its Jews; if Palestine exists from the river to the sea, there is no room for Israel. This statement is a variation on the phrase which Islamic apocalyptic fundamentalists claim the Islamic Madhi will pronounce in the last days: "Jerusalem is Arab Muslim, and Palestine — all of it, from the river to the sea — is Arab Muslim."
The Anti-Defamation League and other prominent Jewish organizations, both left and right leaning, condemned the speech. ADL vice president said[2],
"Those calling for ‘from the river to the sea’ are calling for an end to the State of Israel...It is a shame that once again, this annual event at the United Nations does not promote constructive pathways to ‘Palestinian solidarity’ and a future of peace, but instead divisive and destructive action against Israel."
Hill later claimed[3] he was not calling for the destruction of Israel. But other snippets from his speech[0] showed he in fact was arguing that the UN should permit violence against Israelis, and that peaceful protest was not the only way forward for Arabs living in and around Israel.
[0]: https://twitter.com/AviMayer/status/1067985406388510727
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palestinian_nationalism#From_t...
[2]: https://jewishjournal.com/news/nation/242732/cnn-commentator...
[2]: https://twitter.com/marclamonthill/status/106823807625274572...