4 ms·

Let's be clear. You're saying it's okay to fire people for saying "it's not okay to fire people for bigotry". Yes? If you're not okay with that, if you think Jo

by philh 11y ago

Let's be clear. You're saying it's okay to fire people for saying "it's not okay to fire people for bigotry". Yes? If you're not okay with that, if you think Josh Olin should not have been fired, please say so. I can see your argument, here. I disagree with you, but that's not what I want to get at here. What I want to get at is this: it's one thing to be scared of making racist jokes. It's another thing to be scared of expressing opinions like "Donald Sterling should not have been fired". When people say "I'm scared to express opinions", and then you attack them "ha ha, look at the white people complaining that they're afraid to make racist jokes, how sad for them" - and then you also say that it's okay to fire people for the opinions that they say they're scared to express... I don't have a polite term for this.

wpietri 11y ago
I am not in fact saying that particular incident is or is not ok. (I also don't think his tweets are fairly characterized by your summation.) As I mentioned, I am addressing the line of argument, not the case. What I amsaying is that when the "freedom of speech" flag only gets hauled out for pro-bigotry straight white guys, I think it's not really about freedom of speech but instead defense of privilege. If defenders of free speech want to convince me they're serious, they'll be just as vigorous in defending unpopular opinions of people not in their demographic. That may even be you, in which case, congrats. But unlike you, I don't think it's unconditionally bad that some people are afraid to express opinions because they may face social consequences for them. E.g., if some of the Donald Sterlings of the world are now afraid to express their bigotry, that's ok by me. And if some people are afraid to publish something because they aren't sure whether or not it's bigoted, I also have a hard time seeing that as bad. That seems like a fine opportunity for them to consider their opinions before publishing them. In fact, I think that's what most people do. The only thing that's different is that straight white guys now have to do the same sort of self-managing that everybody else has always done, because they're now slightly less insulated from the consequences of their actions.
- philh 11y ago
  You're addressing a line of argument about which I said "that's not what I want to get at". And you're ignoring the actual thing that I've been talking about. The thing about which I said "it makes me pretty uncomfortable when..." and "I don't have a polite term for this". I disagree with some of what you're saying, and I agree with other bits of it. But I strongly disagree with the thing that you're doing and not even acknowledging.
  - wpietri 11y ago
    Just so we're clear, your complaint is that I'm talking about the thing I want to talk about, rather than me talking about the thing you want me to talk about? I'm not immediately seeing my obligation here.
    - philh 11y ago
      I have multiple complaints! For one, you're a bully. For two, you're changing the subject when I point out your bullying. And now we can add three, you're changing the subject when I point out your changing the subject. Are you trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant here? Who said anything about obligation? Feel free to ignore me, feel free to talk about whatever you like. Meanwhile, I will feel free to point out when I don't like the things you say. Like so: it is a shitty tactic to pretend you're talking to me, to reply as though you have a reply to what I said, and thus to obscure the fact that you're presenting no defense for your actions. I don't know if this is malice or incompetence on your part, but it's bullshit.
      - wpietri 11y ago
        Dude, you replied to my comment. I am not "changing the subject". I was agreeing with CodeCube and extending his point. To the extent there is a subject here, it is covert and overt racists chafing that they can no longer be quite as racist as they are used to. It's not my job to address whatever hobbyhorse you've ridden in on, one I still only find half comprehensible. HN discussion is a recreation for me, one I do on my terms. If you would like to make dealing with you my job, feel free to book me at my consulting rate, $300/hr, cash in advance. I have open slots starting in mid-January. Otherwise, please march back on out of my mentions. Thanks.

by philh 11y ago

wpietri 11y ago

I am not in fact saying that particular incident is or is not ok. (I also don't think his tweets are fairly characterized by your summation.) As I mentioned, I am addressing the line of argument, not the case. What I amsaying is that when the "freedom of speech" flag only gets hauled out for pro-bigotry straight white guys, I think it's not really about freedom of speech but instead defense of privilege. If defenders of free speech want to convince me they're serious, they'll be just as vigorous in defending unpopular opinions of people not in their demographic. That may even be you, in which case, congrats. But unlike you, I don't think it's unconditionally bad that some people are afraid to express opinions because they may face social consequences for them. E.g., if some of the Donald Sterlings of the world are now afraid to express their bigotry, that's ok by me. And if some people are afraid to publish something because they aren't sure whether or not it's bigoted, I also have a hard time seeing that as bad. That seems like a fine opportunity for them to consider their opinions before publishing them. In fact, I think that's what most people do. The only thing that's different is that straight white guys now have to do the same sort of self-managing that everybody else has always done, because they're now slightly less insulated from the consequences of their actions.

philh 11y ago
You're addressing a line of argument about which I said "that's not what I want to get at". And you're ignoring the actual thing that I've been talking about. The thing about which I said "it makes me pretty uncomfortable when..." and "I don't have a polite term for this". I disagree with some of what you're saying, and I agree with other bits of it. But I strongly disagree with the thing that you're doing and not even acknowledging.
- wpietri 11y ago
  Just so we're clear, your complaint is that I'm talking about the thing I want to talk about, rather than me talking about the thing you want me to talk about? I'm not immediately seeing my obligation here.
  - philh 11y ago
    I have multiple complaints! For one, you're a bully. For two, you're changing the subject when I point out your bullying. And now we can add three, you're changing the subject when I point out your changing the subject. Are you trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant here? Who said anything about obligation? Feel free to ignore me, feel free to talk about whatever you like. Meanwhile, I will feel free to point out when I don't like the things you say. Like so: it is a shitty tactic to pretend you're talking to me, to reply as though you have a reply to what I said, and thus to obscure the fact that you're presenting no defense for your actions. I don't know if this is malice or incompetence on your part, but it's bullshit.
    - wpietri 11y ago
      Dude, you replied to my comment. I am not "changing the subject". I was agreeing with CodeCube and extending his point. To the extent there is a subject here, it is covert and overt racists chafing that they can no longer be quite as racist as they are used to. It's not my job to address whatever hobbyhorse you've ridden in on, one I still only find half comprehensible. HN discussion is a recreation for me, one I do on my terms. If you would like to make dealing with you my job, feel free to book me at my consulting rate, $300/hr, cash in advance. I have open slots starting in mid-January. Otherwise, please march back on out of my mentions. Thanks.