Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would hope that all agree a violent crime is worse than a racist tweet. However, there is a sentiment of sympathy afforded to murderers (that they're somehow deserving of rehabilitation) which is not always extended to those who have tweeted racist things. Perhaps this comes because a murder can be seen as a sad result of circumstances. Perhaps the criminal only had to murder because they had a bad upbringing and n…
Ugh, seems you're just trying to come up with ways to apologize and gain sympathy for racists. No, it's not universal or common that people feel more empathy for murderers or criminals. People might feel empathy with more context, when remorse is expressed and time has passed, this applies to both murderers and racists. The examples in the TED talk are poor. If you're in public relations, don't make an offensive joke…
The TED talk, now 5 years old, encapsulated what has now grown into "cancel culture" in a poignant anecdote. There's nothing generative or useful about this concept of prosecution (or persecution?) for making a misstep online.
I am fully in favor of implementing the Portugal drug model, implementing prison reform, and offering prisoners chances at rehabilitation. But to equivocate a racist tweet with a crime is ridiculous and, in my opinion, dangerous. This line of reasoning is barely different from the concept that speech can be violence, which is absurd. The foundation of every liberal democracy is the separation of free speech from criminality.
That principle assumes that a person's ideas can be reformed, which is what we should all hope is possible. Half of the time, alienating people for their views will only further radicalize and polarize them.
Now, to argue that a rehabilitated ex-convict is a better hire than someone actively tweeting racist things is a fine argument, but in an entirely different scope than the aforementioned comment, unless I misinterpreted it.