5 ms·

What about the knock-on effects of everyone doing that: a society where it's common knowledge that the 'wrong kind' of public speech can make you unemployable?

What about the knock-on effects of everyone doing that: a society where it's common knowledge that the 'wrong kind' of public speech can make you unemployable? Isn't that kind of totalitarian?

jpttsn 10y ago
It isn't totalitarian.
- sevenless 10y ago
  There are countries where there may not be legally enforced death penalties for Islamic blasphemy, but defaming the prophet Muhammed will surely get you murdered by an enraged mob. I don't think this distinction makes a lot of difference to the blasphemers. A society so averse to dissenting speech that it bears comparison with totalitarianism doesn't have to be state-enforced. The internet seems to do a good job of amplifying outrage and enabling witch hunts.
lgieron 10y ago
I think we're already there - stand on a corner of your street and yell ALL BUSINESS IS EVIL!! and you're pretty much unemployable in nearby businesses. Do it publicly and under your own name on the internet and you're unemployable globally by businesses who bother to check. And why would they hire you? You consider them evil after all.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- sevenless 10y ago
  But how is this fair or moral? If someone lived in the USSR, wouldn't it be right for them to protest against communism, even if they had to participate in the communist system to survive? Would you tell them they should starve if they were against communism?
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    If you think all businesses are bad and go work in a grocery store and complain about "The Man" to customers, then you'll be fired. It seems reasonable to not bother with them in the first place. A better "communism" analogy would be: Someone who works for the USSR but protests communism. It's not good for business if your own employees are bad mouthing your company.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
omginternets 10y ago
>a society where it's common knowledge that the 'wrong kind' of public speech can make you unemployable? This has always existed, and you're more okay with it than you think you are: would you hire someone who says "nigger" in public? The above is a prime example of the 'wrong kind' of public speech that makes you unemployable, as it should. Free speech doesn't mean "speech without consequence".
- sevenless 10y ago
  > would you hire someone who says "nigger" in public? Yes. Obama said it in public, after all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/22/barack-obama-n-word-racism-marc-maron-interview https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/22/barack-obama... In the US the n-word is part of common speech, especially for young blacks. If you refused to hire anyone who said it in public, that would be a form of racist discrimination against black people. This all relates to the racial double standard over permissible speech, of course. > Free speech doesn't mean "speech without consequence". In that case it isn't really free speech, any more than you've got free speech if I'm holding a gun to your head and threatening to shoot you if you say something I disagree with.
  - omginternets 10y ago
    I just said "nigger" technically, but as you well know, there's a difference between using the word in the first-degree and referring to the word to make a point about its semantics or cultural context. "Fuck you, nigger" is not the same as "The word 'nigger' has a lot of baggage", and that is still not the same as "that's my nigga over there". You know this, and I know that you know this. Further, if you don't understand that "free speech" refers to governmental policy rather than social norms, and if you don't understand that free speech comes with limitations (shouting "fire" in a crowded place, blah blah blah), then there is no hope of a thoughtful discussion.
    - sevenless 10y ago
      You are confusing free speech with the right to free speech. The latter, in the US, is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The former is a description of your state of freedom, and the law saying you have the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you actually have it. The government is not the only entity that has an effect on free speech. Not all rights that you have on paper are enforced. A right to life is not the same as being alive. A right to free speech is not the same as actually having free speech. A society where saying unpopular things will get you attacked by a mob, instantly fired with loss of healthcare/housing, etc does not have free speech, even if the letter of the law says this right exists. > shouting "fire" in a crowded place, blah blah blah I've said this on the internet many, many times: That quote comes from a USSC case where the right to protest against the draft in the First World War was taken away, it was not upheld, and frankly, it's fascist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...

What about the knock-on effects of everyone doing that: a society where it's common knowledge that the 'wrong kind' of public speech can make you unemployable? Isn't that kind of totalitarian?

jpttsn 10y ago

It isn't totalitarian.

sevenless 10y ago
There are countries where there may not be legally enforced death penalties for Islamic blasphemy, but defaming the prophet Muhammed will surely get you murdered by an enraged mob. I don't think this distinction makes a lot of difference to the blasphemers. A society so averse to dissenting speech that it bears comparison with totalitarianism doesn't have to be state-enforced. The internet seems to do a good job of amplifying outrage and enabling witch hunts.

lgieron 10y ago

I think we're already there - stand on a corner of your street and yell ALL BUSINESS IS EVIL!! and you're pretty much unemployable in nearby businesses. Do it publicly and under your own name on the internet and you're unemployable globally by businesses who bother to check. And why would they hire you? You consider them evil after all.

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
sevenless 10y ago
But how is this fair or moral? If someone lived in the USSR, wouldn't it be right for them to protest against communism, even if they had to participate in the communist system to survive? Would you tell them they should starve if they were against communism?
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  If you think all businesses are bad and go work in a grocery store and complain about "The Man" to customers, then you'll be fired. It seems reasonable to not bother with them in the first place. A better "communism" analogy would be: Someone who works for the USSR but protests communism. It's not good for business if your own employees are bad mouthing your company.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

omginternets 10y ago

>a society where it's common knowledge that the 'wrong kind' of public speech can make you unemployable? This has always existed, and you're more okay with it than you think you are: would you hire someone who says "nigger" in public? The above is a prime example of the 'wrong kind' of public speech that makes you unemployable, as it should. Free speech doesn't mean "speech without consequence".

sevenless 10y ago
> would you hire someone who says "nigger" in public? Yes. Obama said it in public, after all. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/22/barack-obama-n-word-racism-marc-maron-interview https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/22/barack-obama... In the US the n-word is part of common speech, especially for young blacks. If you refused to hire anyone who said it in public, that would be a form of racist discrimination against black people. This all relates to the racial double standard over permissible speech, of course. > Free speech doesn't mean "speech without consequence". In that case it isn't really free speech, any more than you've got free speech if I'm holding a gun to your head and threatening to shoot you if you say something I disagree with.
- omginternets 10y ago
  I just said "nigger" technically, but as you well know, there's a difference between using the word in the first-degree and referring to the word to make a point about its semantics or cultural context. "Fuck you, nigger" is not the same as "The word 'nigger' has a lot of baggage", and that is still not the same as "that's my nigga over there". You know this, and I know that you know this. Further, if you don't understand that "free speech" refers to governmental policy rather than social norms, and if you don't understand that free speech comes with limitations (shouting "fire" in a crowded place, blah blah blah), then there is no hope of a thoughtful discussion.
  - sevenless 10y ago
    You are confusing free speech with the right to free speech. The latter, in the US, is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. The former is a description of your state of freedom, and the law saying you have the right to free speech does not necessarily mean that you actually have it. The government is not the only entity that has an effect on free speech. Not all rights that you have on paper are enforced. A right to life is not the same as being alive. A right to free speech is not the same as actually having free speech. A society where saying unpopular things will get you attacked by a mob, instantly fired with loss of healthcare/housing, etc does not have free speech, even if the letter of the law says this right exists. > shouting "fire" in a crowded place, blah blah blah I've said this on the internet many, many times: That quote comes from a USSC case where the right to protest against the draft in the First World War was taken away, it was not upheld, and frankly, it's fascist. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_the...