posted
I assumed the splashing was just the natural consequence of a nearly-drowned person springing desperately out of the pool. Once no one is getting shoved under water any more I expect the egress will be smoother.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What people *are* doing is dismissing people from being full participants of the discussion and society at large because of where their beliefs are derived from.
Is that really the wrong thing to do, though? I mean, if your beliefs are derived from something arbitrary, like you just flipped a coin and decided what to believe that way, your opinion should be dismissed from public consideration. To give another example that's less random, if your religious beliefs tell you that the tarot is reliable, and you're on a jury and do a tarot reading that says I'm guilty, you're being an awful citizen if you vote to convict me on that basis.
Where do we draw the line here? I think the only non-arbitrary place to draw it is, beliefs that have objective evidence backing them up are legitimate support for policy positions, voting and the like. Other beliefs are not.
To go through your list of grievances:
quote:Don't buy their books, see the movie based on that book they wrote, don't contract them to write something for you,
Seems OK to me, except that I think boycotts are dumb. If it went very far I would worry about a chilling effect on speech.
quote: don't hire them at all, require them to resign,
Not OK.
quote: sue them for refusing to provide a service they say violates their beliefs,
Definitely OK. Labor protection laws are there for a reason and religion shouldn't be a free pass to ignore them. Nor should it be a free pass to not do your job to the full extent if you're a doctor, for example.
quote:require them to teach that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage regardless of their own convictions.
Nobody should be required to teach that it's ethical. If science supports the view that it doesn't have bad effects, though, teachers should be required to present that science fairly when they address the subject in class.
quote:at the same time though this is all in a level of nuance way above that crap (hooray?) and so I think that yes some of the persecution complex here about Poor Christians needs to be reanalyzed for what it actually is. there is no real equivalence in the hypothesized flip between <bad thing> happening to <marginalized nonvoluntarily associated group> and <bad thing> happening to <powerful dominant majority elective religion representing literally about 80 percent of all americans
I don't think BB needs to say that there is equivalence. Just that what's happening when Christians get silenced is also wrong (maybe not equally wrong, but bad enough to warrant our attention).
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because it is kind of obnoxious and whiny. It disregards and disrespects the fact that we (collectively and historically) have been holding their heads under water for centuries. After struggling to get out from under, we now decide to lecture them on pool etiquette? And (not in your case) sometimes it is an excuse to shove them back in the pool.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assumed the splashing was just the natural consequence of a nearly-drowned person springing desperately out of the pool. Once no one is getting shoved under water any more I expect the egress will be smoother.
I think that's misguided. I think the only way to get people to stop being jerks at the pool is to tell everybody to stop being jerks at the pool, not just the people who need to be told the most.
Destineer:
quote:Is that really the wrong thing to do, though? I mean, if your beliefs are derived from something arbitrary, like you just flipped a coin and decided what to believe that way, your opinion should be dismissed from public consideration.
Will you similarly be dismissing people who say, "I heard scientists think X" and then vote for X, without any hard grounding in statistics, or the subject matter they are voting on? If they put their faith in what the popular media says about it, will we also tell them to get out of the conversation?
And not all religious beliefs are arbitrarily reached. Many of them are the results of thousands of years of contemplation by billions of people. Perhaps we shouldn't accept beliefs that are 0% rationality and 100% feelings, but we shouldn't tell people that religion is an invalid way to wrestle with a problem and find answers. Even ones that go against evidence we think is strong.
And just to be clear, when I say something is, "Just as wrong" I am not also saying, "It's as big a problem as..." So yes, it warrants our attention.
kmbboots:
quote:It disregards and disrespects the fact that we (collectively and historically) have been holding their heads under water for centuries.
I couldn't disagree with this more. If anything, to me, you disregard the principles of fairness and equality if you unequally apply them only to one subset of the populace, and tell the others they aren't oppressed enough to need it.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think that's misguided. I think the only way to get people to stop being jerks at the pool is to tell everybody to stop being jerks at the pool, not just the people who need to be told the most.
I'm not saying anyone should be a jerk, but that it's not necessary to lecture the kid who's shouting an insult back at the bully on his way home from getting beat up. It's a transitory experience, largely built on the previous greater harm done by the bully and as the bullies dwindle these aftershocks will as well.
quote:Will you similarly be dismissing people who say, "I heard scientists think X" and then vote for X, without any hard grounding in statistics, or the subject matter they are voting on?
If they have good reason to think scientists actually do think X, then their method makes perfect sense. Learning from expert testimony is objectively reasonable. If they are going off rumors of what scientists think, on the other hand, they are being bad voter.
quote: If they put their faith in what the popular media says about it, will we also tell them to get out of the conversation?
They shouldn't vote that way. I suppose my view is not that people who reason subjectively should be left out of the conversation, but rather that all parties to the conversation should avoid bringing subjective reasoning into it.
quote:And not all religious beliefs are arbitrarily reached. Many of them are the results of thousands of years of contemplation by billions of people. Perhaps we shouldn't accept beliefs that are 0% rationality and 100% feelings, but we shouldn't tell people that religion is an invalid way to wrestle with a problem and find answers. Even ones that go against evidence we think is strong.
I agree with this, I think? We shouldn't tell people that religion is a bad way to find answers for their own personal questions. But if you are going to try to influence someone else's life without their agreement, you need to provide objective, publicly available reasons for doing so.
What do you think of my tarot example?
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm okay with the pointing and laughing, the boycotts, even the employees and customers of a company rising up to strongly suggest that a bigot resign his post. Just the same way that I wouldn't mind if these things were done to a member of the Klan or someone who supported a proposition that allowed only members of the same race to marry each other.
All of this is true so long as it is not the government doing it. Then, I would be concerned. Fellow citizens? No problem at all.
As to people voting for what the voices in their head tell them is best, I'll agree with most other here. People should be free to vote for whatever they want, for whatever reason they want.
When they try to pass laws restricting and demeaning others for no better reason then godsaidso, then they quite rightly deserve ridicule and any other non violent/non theft (and someone deciding NOT to give their money to someone, or encouraging others not to, is not theft) that their fellow citizens can dish out.
We have to respect each other's right to vote. We're under no ethical or moral rule saying that we have to respect each other's reasons for voting what they do.
People can say that this is going to hurt the cause or whatever, but it won't, not really. Within a generation or two today's old folks will have died out and the only opposition to gays will come from the lunatic religious fringes. The battle is won. The bigots have lost. A lot of them just haven't realized it yet, which may well be to their detriment, but again, don't ask me to shed tears for bigots facing completely legal consequences for their actions from non government sources.
I suppose if the LDS had decided that the black priesthood ban indicated that blacks shouldn't have been allowed to serve in elected office, and tried to get a proposition passed to that affect, that people in the early 20th century would have been wrong to shun people giving money to that cause?
What utter rubbish.
Posts: 572 | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged |
posted
no you pretty much have the right of it. assuming ive spent my life metaphorically having my head dunked under the socioeconomic and sociocultural waters by oppressing classes, the one thing i can't wait to experience is getting lectured about how i splashed water on the people oppressing me, oh no!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
The side I find surreal and paternalistic is the BB-side take on it, because it's just a reiteration of tone policing marginalized people when they don't go out of their way to avoid 'splashing'
this is something we've been over in detail before, now that I think about it. it is yet another expression of "it is a virtue to be tolerant of an oppressor's good intentions" beliefs, now beng discussed in another form.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:it is yet another expression of "it is a virtue to be tolerant of an oppressor's good intentions" beliefs, now beng discussed in another form.
I'm sort of of two minds about this. I think it is good to maintain civility in democratic processes. Also, psychology as well as common sense back up the view that anger and self-righteousness are at least correlated with unresponsiveness to good evidence (although so is a sense of oneself as "objective," weirdly enough--might be one of those social psych results that won't hold up). So if oppressed people are Christlike enough to be tolerant in this way, that's admirable. And it's not like the oppression of the non-religious by the religious is the most invidious example of repression in history, compared with others.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thanks, Sam. I thought you meant the analogy itself was paternalistic and was confused.
Destineer, historically religious oppression has been no picnic and, even when the oppression has not been religious in origin, we have have seldom been better than the rest in opposing it. For example, biblical texts were as often used to support slavery in the US as to abolish it and, at the first, those abolitionists were a radical fringe. We do have some shining moments but far fewer than we should have.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Right, but it's nothing like racial oppression, which persists to this day and whose effects span generations (eg in that the relative poverty of black people today is in part a consequence of slavery and sharecropping). As an atheist in the present day, I experience essentially no oppression.
Obviously the issue of gay people is a separate one, but if we're talking about oppression of the non-religious by the religious I don't see that as occasion for much continuing anger.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: The side I find surreal and paternalistic is the BB-side take on it, because it's just a reiteration of tone policing marginalized people when they don't go out of their way to avoid 'splashing'
this is something we've been over in detail before, now that I think about it. it is yet another expression of "it is a virtue to be tolerant of an oppressor's good intentions" beliefs, now beng discussed in another form.
Yes, I still expect people who have been oppressed to avoid being oppressive to others.
I don't think being tone deaf to ones own words by comparison is an admirable quality or excusable.
------------
Destineer:
quote:To give another example that's less random, if your religious beliefs tell you that the tarot is reliable, and you're on a jury and do a tarot reading that says I'm guilty, you're being an awful citizen if you vote to convict me on that basis.
That's not a very good comparison. Juror's often form their opinions by less than objective means and we certainly don't make jurors pass an objectivity test when voting either way. Some would say internally, "I can tell just by looking at him/her that they're guilty." Or, "She's a nun, she'd *never* do that."
I would suspect that if somebody got down on their knees and started praying in the deliberation room that if asked what they were doing, responded, "Asking God if the defendant is guilty." that they would be dismissed.
Look we both agree in principle that a religion shouldn't force people to obey their rules. But it's not so easily defined. Again, I'd point you to the Germany circumcision debacle. I can't recall many people on this board standing up for a parent's right to raise their children as they saw fit. Some argued the parents were mutilating their child, and that the state could step in to stop circumcision from happening because it was harmful.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's not a very good comparison. Juror's often form their opinions by less than objective means and we certainly don't make jurors pass an objectivity test when voting either way. Some would say internally, "I can tell just by looking at him/her that they're guilty." Or, "She's a nun, she'd *never* do that."
Well, they are also being bad citizens. If you're saying voting on the basis of your religious beliefs is as respectable as thinking "I can tell who's guilty just by looking," that's basically my position.
quote:Again, I'd point you to the Germany circumcision debacle. I can't recall many people on this board standing up for a parent's right to raise their children as they saw fit. Some argued the parents were mutilating their child, and that the state could step in to stop circumcision from happening because it was harmful.
It depends on if it is harmful. Tough question there, I guess. But the principle doesn't change. I know that if the tradition was to cut off a hand or a finger, I would not want to permit it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Look we both agree in principle that a religion shouldn't force people to obey their rules. But it's not so easily defined. Again, I'd point you to the Germany circumcision debacle. I can't recall many people on this board standing up for a parent's right to raise their children as they saw fit. Some argued the parents were mutilating their child, and that the state could step in to stop circumcision from happening because it was harmful.
I'm sorry to be blunt, but if you believe parents should be able to perform an elective surgical procedure on their children before the children can possibly consent to it on even the slightest level (that is to say, infancy), then 'in principle' we don't agree that religion shouldn't force people to obey their rules. Performing a circumcision before a child can even speak certainly qualifies.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Destineer: What about a brand? A tattoo? A piercing? Multiple piercings? What about teaching kids to trust their feelings even when common sense says not to? What about teaching children that the Godless world will hate them for being religious and that is just proof they are doing the right thing? What about teaching children to stay away from those who do not share their beliefs? Or to join a cult?
Rakeesh: I'm not surprised you think the state should step in and interfere with a religious belief like circumcision. So what sort of harmful religious behaviors would you insist the state not step in and prevent?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not trying to be rude but I am pretty clear on the difference. And I think everybody here is too. What I'm talking about is the state interfering with religious expression as well as people falling into the ideological purity trap and trying to crush those with beliefs they think deserve it or else exiling them from society.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Destineer: What about a brand? A tattoo? A piercing? Multiple piercings? What about teaching kids to trust their feelings even when common sense says not to? What about teaching children that the Godless world will hate them for being religious and that is just proof they are doing the right thing? What about teaching children to stay away from those who do not share their beliefs? Or to join a cult?
I'm not sure what the existence of hard-to-call borderline cases like these is supposed to prove.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think a wealthy tech luminary who has been subjected to not feeling like he can't stay on as the CEO of a major brand has been particularly oppressed. That doesn't really jibe with the connotation of oppress, and seems to be a poor fit for the denotation as well.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
If I were made unwelcome at my job--even if I were rich enough not to care about the money--I would feel absolutely horrible, and yes, oppressed. I think there is a massive failure of empathy going on when some people on the left consider Eich's situation. Worse things happen every fraction of a second, of course, but that doesn't make what happened to him OK.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, I think a lot of the failure of empathy is informed by overreactions from people who are saying that his civil rights are being infringed and this is the start of a Stalin-esque reign of terror (I argued with a guy who said exactly that). Of course nothing happened to his civil rights, and there's no Stalin to be seen on the scene. But it's hard to argue against that viewpoint without seeming like you're cheering for what happened to Eich, I've found. And it doesn't surprise me that the overreaction is often met with mockery, when it pretends the "splashing" is just about the worst thing possible.
Still, I think it is best to have empathy, and when correcting the hyperbole not to engage in any in return. This is hard, but worth it.
(I'm not great at it. I got really mad at that guy, in fact. He wouldn't hear what I was saying or admit when he was indulging in wild distortion.)
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Destineer: What about a brand? A tattoo? A piercing? Multiple piercings? What about teaching kids to trust their feelings even when common sense says not to? What about teaching children that the Godless world will hate them for being religious and that is just proof they are doing the right thing? What about teaching children to stay away from those who do not share their beliefs? Or to join a cult?
I'm not sure what the existence of hard-to-call borderline cases like these is supposed to prove.
I guess part of me feels like people here largely think that when push comes to shove, religion should lose every time.
I appreciate your understanding that what happened to Mr. Eich was pretty horrific. I really do. But everybody else here seems to think that because he was super rich it hardly matters what is done to him as he can just erase whatever hurt is done to him with his money. And if not that, he deserves it for having horrific views. It's so frustrating to see such an abject lack of empathy.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think "lack of empathy" is a perfect way to sum up what you are saying, BB. I feel the same way.
Posts: 298 | Registered: Sep 2011
| IP: Logged |
quote:But everybody else here seems to think that because he was super rich it hardly matters what is done to him as he can just erase whatever hurt is done to him with his money. And if not that, he deserves it for having horrific views. It's so frustrating to see such an abject lack of empathy.
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: So what sort of harmful religious behaviors would you insist the state not step in and prevent?
This seems like a more general question, i.e. you could lift out the word "religious" and it wouldn't make a difference. What sort of harmful behaviours should the state not step in and prevent? Presumably those where the state would cause more harm by stepping in than the harm caused by the behaviour in the first place. Presumably, we just disagree on the weighing on the harms.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: BlackBlade, do you really stand by this?
quote:But everybody else here seems to think that because he was super rich it hardly matters what is done to him as he can just erase whatever hurt is done to him with his money. And if not that, he deserves it for having horrific views. It's so frustrating to see such an abject lack of empathy.
To the extent I can stand by what "seems" to the case yes. It's an easily disproven perception.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're taking the least charitable view of the behavior of the worst actors and assigning it to everyone who is not on the correct side of the argument? Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the issue of Eich, two quotes that I've found helpful.
The first from "Mike," a commenter on whatever.scalzi.com referring to this widley-shared XKCD comic and its mouseover text, "I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.":
quote:The cartoon makes a good point, and the mouse-over text is worth reading but that isn’t all there is on this subject. If you decide to respond to speech by boycotting, cancelling the speaker’s show, banning someone from an internet community, and give an argument like the one in this cartoon as the reason why, you are saying that the most compelling argument for your position is that it’s literally not illegal to suppress the speaker because you aren’t the government. If a university invites a speaker and a student group turns up to shout him or her down, or raises such a ruckus that speaker or the university cancel the appearance, the free exchange of ideas has likely been harmed. The fact that it’s not literally a violation of the first amendment is very small comfort.
The second, from John Stuart Mill:
quote:Our merely social intolerance kills no one, roots out no opinions, but induces men to disguise them, or to abstain from any active effort for their diffusion. With us, heretical opinions do not perceptibly gain, or even lose, ground in each decade or generation; they never blaze out far and wide, but continue to smoulder in the narrow circles of thinking and studious persons among whom they originate, without ever lighting up the general affairs of mankind with either a true or a deceptive light. And thus is kept up a state of things very satisfactory to some minds, because, without the unpleasant process of fining or imprisoning anybody, it maintains all prevailing opinions outwardly undisturbed, while it does not absolutely interdict the exercise of reason by dissentients afflicted with the malady of thought. A convenient plan for having peace in the intellectual world, and keeping all things going on therein very much as they do already. But the price paid for this sort of intellectual pacification, is the sacrifice of the entire moral courage of the human mind. (On Liberty, chapter 2, paragraph 19)
posted
Destineer: Yeah, I agree completely. I said something along these lines on Facebook. I used the dialogue,
"Can I ask you a question?"
"It's a free country."
To me that illustrates not that,
"Legally there are no consequences to substance of your question."
But rather,
"Our society values a diversity of thought and the meaningful exchange of ideas as evidenced by the legal protections afforded in our Constitution, so ask your question."
I feel that when somebody is being sanctioned by society and they cry out,
"What about free speech?"
They are actually saying is,
"But I think many of your views are just as terrible, but I was willing to be a member of the society of which you are a valued member. Why won't you keep that compact as represented by free speech."
The more diverse a society is, (and I would argue the United States is probably the most diverse society in the history of mankind) the more we should respect that diversity. Ideological purity is good for small communities and clubs, not nations.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: That depends on what we are being ideologically pure about.
Well that's almost always the case. Are there concepts you think demand ideological purity, and what does that look like?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to see the problem in a different way, which I think is closer to what Mill has in mind in the quote. Why do we have a problem with the government trying to control our speech? Because the government is so powerful and no one can be trusted to exert power fairly over free expression (in a way that doesn't distort the marketplace of ideas).
But one of the central insights of the left has been that the government is not the only powerful entity, which is to say it's not the only potential source of tyranny. Employers can be tyrannical, special interest groups can be tyrannical, etc, because these entities have considerable power over us and are sort of like "private governments" in their own right. So if we think it's wrong for the actual government to control speech, the same reasoning should suggest that it's wrong for private governments to try to control it.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
In this case Eich *is* the government. As CEO he's effectively president of the Mozilla nation. As such, it's appropriate for the citizens of that government (employees/partners/customers) to speak out about their concerns with his views and actions, past or present. I think most of us would nod approvingly at a gay person who said he could not vote for Obama because of his claim, at the time that we was running, that he didn't support SSM. We would also consider his advocacy to others to not vote for him to be appropriate, given his stated principles.
So no, Mozilla shouldn't be firing anyone for having unpopular views, and they didn't do so here. He resigned, possibly under pressure from other members of management, because of complaints from the proletariat.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think most of us would nod approvingly at a gay person who said he could not vote for Obama because of his claim, at the time that we was running, that he didn't support SSM.
But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
We'd also frown on them if they said, "I won't vote for a person who took a stance against gay marriage in the past, even if he has continued to support the pro-gay policies of his predecessor."
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
The higher up the chain you go, the less sympathy I have for the person affected. Not only because of their existing privilege because of their wealth and membership in the ruling class, but also because hiring people for those positions is a business strategy move, not a staffing decision. You aren't just hiring someone for a skill set at that point, you are also hiring an ambassador for the brand. If your employees, customers, and partners feel like they or their friends have been slighted by that person then of course they can't effectively run the company.
The same calculus doesn't apply to rank-and-file. They are cogs in a machine and their job-specific skills are all that should matter.
quote:But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
We'd also frown on them if they said, "I won't vote for a person who took a stance against gay marriage in the past, even if he has continued to support the pro-gay policies of his predecessor."
Vowed a change of heart away from substantial support for anti-gay policies was authentic, in this case.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:require them to teach that same-sex marriage is exactly the same as heterosexual marriage regardless of their own convictions.
Nobody should be required to teach that it's ethical. If science supports the view that it doesn't have bad effects, though, teachers should be required to present that science fairly when they address the subject in class.
Science has nothing to say about whether or not something has or does not have bad effects. It takes moral philosophy to determine that.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Moral philosophy defines which affects are good or bad. Science can often address whether a given phenomenon has those effects. In this case it could address the various negative affects postulated in the arguments that have been addressed in the court cases over SSM.
Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MattP: Moral philosophy defines which affects are good or bad. Science can often address whether a given phenomenon has those effects. In this case it could address the various negative affects postulated in the arguments that have been addressed in the court cases over SSM.
Yeah, that's how I see it. So a teacher shouldn't be allowed to teach disproven psychological theories of the effects that gay marriage has on the children of gay couples, for example.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
"But I think many of your views are just as terrible, but I was willing to be a member of the society of which you are a valued member. Why won't you keep that compact as represented by free speech."
The more diverse a society is, (and I would argue the United States is probably the most diverse society in the history of mankind) the more we should respect that diversity. Ideological purity is good for small communities and clubs, not nations.
This will be a repetition, but I would remark that in the subtext of what you feel is actually being said by someone who references freedom of expression, the thing is, in this case in particular-the SSM argument in the United States-the people now complaining about freedom of speech didn't respect 'the compact'.
They're the same people who historically and in some cases even presently wished for legal condemnation of private homosexual behavior. I'm not even just talking about denial of equal rights, but actual criminal punishments for homosexual behavior between consenting adults.
So to that person? I will reply to the subtext 'absolutely I respect your right to freedom of speech, and if anyone should try to use force to restrain that right, I will oppose them as best I can. But I will not blithely accept your narrative wherein you are a proponent of freedom of speech which is now being violated, because you ain't.'
quote:But we wouldn't if he was an employee of the government, particularly in the military, or the diplomat core, or a cabinet aide.
Positions within the government, which represents us all, are not the same as public figureheads and leaders of privately held businesses. Though I will remark again, since it needs to be said, that the very same people who are crying most loudly about violations of freedom of speech are the very people who would not have thought twice about barring an openly homosexual man from serving as a Chief of Staff or an Attorney General twenty or even ten years ago. To say nothing of Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, assorted pagans, and of course sometimes women and Jews as well.
A high minded defense of freedom of expression I can absolutely get behind, and in fact I think it's a really important question that I appreciate you raising in light of the ways in which social media add substantial 'oomph' to social disapproval as faced by Eich. It's an important discussion. But man, I wish* you'd stop asking us to pity the 'victims' of intolerance and regard what is happening to them as some sort of injustice.
*That is not to say I hope you stop speaking your mind, which would be a lovely little irony. Rather I mean it in the sense that man I just don't get why you're championing such a singularly unworthy set of 'victims' when it seems to me that freedom of expression is quite sufficient in and of itself a cause to champion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
