5 ms·

"Such people will also be barred from serving in certain high-status and influential positions, like government official, reporter, CEO, statistician, and simil

"Such people will also be barred from serving in certain high-status and influential positions, like government official, reporter, CEO, statistician, and similar." For all practical purposes, I don't think this would be so different from what we already have in the West for people like CEOs, government officials, reporters etc. These people seem to be kicked out as soon as they do something politically incorrect. They don't seem to have much freedom. For example, the CEO of Mozilla who gave like 1000 dollars to some anti-gay cause like 10 years ago, or the CEO of BP who hired gay escorts or John Derbyshire who wrote something unflattering about blacks. Ok, it's not the government doing it in the West, but the majority mob. But does it really matter whether it's some elitist government or the majority in a democracy doing it?

tluyben2 11y ago
But "These people seem to be kicked out as soon as they do something politically incorrect." in the West depends on the country/state/company/current political side of the gov etc what is considered 'politically (in)correct' and they would generally actually have to DO it, not only say something. I hear CEO's/reporters/etc 'in the west' making weird too right or too left-ish remarks and no-one cares. In China that seems all quite clear ; they would be out while here it really very much depends what they say/do, where they are and in what capacity.
ageek123 11y ago
Not "majority mob" -- more like "vocab minority mob"
calibraxis 11y ago
These poor, starving CEOs constantly kick people out of jobs for simply annoying them — it's called "firing". Tyranny of the corporate mob bosses.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
blumkvist 11y ago
The CEO of the world's biggest company by market cap. was revealed gay by accident on TV and nothing happened.
- rewqfdsa 11y ago
  Being gay is fine as far as the influencer class is concerned though. Imagine the brouhaha that would have resulted if instead he'd, say, been outed as being opposed to abortion.
TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
There is a huge difference between social pressure to quit for believing some humans are worth less than others, and the Government forcing you to quit because you made a minor comment on the stock exchange crash. Do you think that it would somehow be better if the beliefs of people with power were not questioned?
- jensen123 11y ago
  I don't mind if powerful people are being questioned. However, there's a difference between questioning someone, and making them lose their job.
  - TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
    So they should be unaccountable?
    - lmm 11y ago
      People should be accountable for their actions, not for expressing an opinion.
      - lbebber 11y ago
        No, people should be accountable for their opinions as well - you can't simply say that black people are stupid (in the John Derbyshire example) and expect that people won't get mad at you.
        blisterpeanuts 11y ago
        People might get mad at you. The board of directors might decide you're an embarrassment to the company, and golden-parachute you. But to impose some kind of angelic, super-human behavior requirements for top business leaders seems a bit naive. Quite a few of these hard charging types who made it to the top tend to have, shall we say, unpleasant personalities.
westiseast 11y ago
In theory it shouldn't matter, assuming that 'the mob' truly reflects public opinion, and the government is 100% honest officials who work tirelessly and selflessly for the people. In reality, you have to remember the principle of 'checks and balances' in a democracy. The government, the media, the mob, the judiciary.... all have voices and occasionally one prevails over the other, or two-or-more support each other. They can also resist each other - the judiciary can send a popular entertainer to prison, the mob can resist overbearing government action. It's scary in a democracy when the government gains too much leverage over the media, or the judiciary because..... then it starts to look like China :)
- VLM 11y ago
  > assuming that 'the mob' truly reflects public opinion Given your average vigilante group being a microscopic fraction of the public, alignment will be rare and random.
gambler 11y ago
The entire thing sounds like a more "efficient" version of what some people try to implement "manually" in the West. It's not just "high-status and influential positions". Speakers get disinvited from conferences. Comedians get no-confidence vote when considered for gigs in colleges. Professors get fired. Random people are targeted by stink campaigns on Twitter and fired as well. And this is just the stuff that happens in the open.

tluyben2 11y ago

But "These people seem to be kicked out as soon as they do something politically incorrect." in the West depends on the country/state/company/current political side of the gov etc what is considered 'politically (in)correct' and they would generally actually have to DO it, not only say something. I hear CEO's/reporters/etc 'in the west' making weird too right or too left-ish remarks and no-one cares. In China that seems all quite clear ; they would be out while here it really very much depends what they say/do, where they are and in what capacity.

ageek123 11y ago

Not "majority mob" -- more like "vocab minority mob"

calibraxis 11y ago

These poor, starving CEOs constantly kick people out of jobs for simply annoying them — it's called "firing". Tyranny of the corporate mob bosses.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]

blumkvist 11y ago

The CEO of the world's biggest company by market cap. was revealed gay by accident on TV and nothing happened.

rewqfdsa 11y ago
Being gay is fine as far as the influencer class is concerned though. Imagine the brouhaha that would have resulted if instead he'd, say, been outed as being opposed to abortion.

TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago

There is a huge difference between social pressure to quit for believing some humans are worth less than others, and the Government forcing you to quit because you made a minor comment on the stock exchange crash. Do you think that it would somehow be better if the beliefs of people with power were not questioned?

jensen123 11y ago
I don't mind if powerful people are being questioned. However, there's a difference between questioning someone, and making them lose their job.
- TazeTSchnitzel 11y ago
  So they should be unaccountable?
  - lmm 11y ago
    People should be accountable for their actions, not for expressing an opinion.
    - lbebber 11y ago
      No, people should be accountable for their opinions as well - you can't simply say that black people are stupid (in the John Derbyshire example) and expect that people won't get mad at you.
      - blisterpeanuts 11y ago
        People might get mad at you. The board of directors might decide you're an embarrassment to the company, and golden-parachute you. But to impose some kind of angelic, super-human behavior requirements for top business leaders seems a bit naive. Quite a few of these hard charging types who made it to the top tend to have, shall we say, unpleasant personalities.

westiseast 11y ago

In theory it shouldn't matter, assuming that 'the mob' truly reflects public opinion, and the government is 100% honest officials who work tirelessly and selflessly for the people. In reality, you have to remember the principle of 'checks and balances' in a democracy. The government, the media, the mob, the judiciary.... all have voices and occasionally one prevails over the other, or two-or-more support each other. They can also resist each other - the judiciary can send a popular entertainer to prison, the mob can resist overbearing government action. It's scary in a democracy when the government gains too much leverage over the media, or the judiciary because..... then it starts to look like China :)

VLM 11y ago
> assuming that 'the mob' truly reflects public opinion Given your average vigilante group being a microscopic fraction of the public, alignment will be rare and random.

gambler 11y ago

The entire thing sounds like a more "efficient" version of what some people try to implement "manually" in the West. It's not just "high-status and influential positions". Speakers get disinvited from conferences. Comedians get no-confidence vote when considered for gigs in colleges. Professors get fired. Random people are targeted by stink campaigns on Twitter and fired as well. And this is just the stuff that happens in the open.