3 ms·

Do you want to live in a world where people don't dare to support political causes (even privately or in secret) because, if discovered, a constituency opposed

Do you want to live in a world where people don't dare to support political causes (even privately or in secret) because, if discovered, a constituency opposed to that cause can successfully demand they be punished? Even when the political cause they support is as mainstream as the official candidate of one of the two big parties, or one side of a public vote as in the case of Eich? Even if you personally oppose Trump, there are enough Trump supporters to boycott organizations whose leaders are known to donate to Hillary Clinton. The natural outcome of such boycotts is segregation - a VR company catering to Democrats, and a different VR company catering to Republicans. More concretely: you can boycott Oculus for the private actions of its CEO. And other people can boycott a local cafe because its owner is known to donate to Planned Parenthood or because they agreed to make a cake for a gay wedding. Do you prefer both things to happen, or neither? One of the key principles of democracy is freedom of political association. The usual saying is "I'll defend to the death your right to say it". Those who don't hold to this norm, apart from being IMO unjust to their political opponents, risk being on the losing side in their turn.

stephenr 10y ago
When the two examples you have are a guy donating for a bigoted discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and a guy donating to a group supporting a racist, bigoted, sexist sociopath who wants to play mr president, it's not much of an argument. Even in the hypothetical: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. I did say, no one says they cant do what they do, they just shouldn't be surprised when they get a reaction.
- danarmak 10y ago
  The two cases are great examples of democracy. People want to elect a president that other people (like you) greatly disagree with. People want to vote for an amendment to their state constitution. (It was later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but before that it had been ruled constitutional by the state supreme court in Strauss v. Horton, so there seemed to be legitimate room for debate.) California Proposition 8 passed the public vote with 52% in favor, and Trump consistently polls above 40% today. Do you support boycotting every company where at least one executive officer belongs to a 40%+ part of the population? Do you really expect that, if applied fairly, this wouldn't result in boycotting almost all companies in the market? Would you support policies routinely vetting the private behavior of company executives? Are you alright with the other camp boycotting companies whose executives hold opinions you support? I believe that people should be able to employ, be employed, and not be ostracized, regardless of their private strictly legal and in fact mainstream political opinions, however odious those opinions may be to a subset of the population. Quite apart from morals, it's the only workable equilibrium in a politically polarized society.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    what is your solution? Force people to do business with people/companies against their will? I'm not sure about America but in the developed world, there are laws against shit like "I didn't hire him because he voted for Reagan" There are not laws forcing people/companies to do business regardless of their opinions on the behaviour/actions of a company/CEO/etc. Are you really saying allowing people to boycott things based on their own beliefs is bad?
    - danarmak 10y ago
      Of course we can't force people (by law) to do business with someone, and shouldn't try. What we should do is establish strong social norms against this kind of discrimination and against this kind of net outrage mob hounding of people. Speak out against them, support victims (regardless of political affiliation), try not to give in when targeted.
      - stephenr 10y ago
        Trumps supporters are victims because sane people don't want to support those who support a sociopath. Gotcha. Edit: also: I still don't understand why you believe there is a problem. If someone is actually fired because they support a particular party/etc that would be (in sane countries) illegal. If it's not illegal in your country, maybe you should fix that before insisting that anything anyone says should be automatically free of consequences. That is a very slippery fucking slope, especially with the sort of shit trump supporters say aleady. As for the specific issues: Brendan resigned from Mozilla because he couldn't "manage effectively", aka the staff in Mozilla didn't respect him because of his prior actions. It was the staff in Mozilla who publicised his donation - they knew what he'd done before the shit storm that happened online. If you can't unfuck yourself from a situation where people don't respect you, maybe you didn't have the chops to be CEO in the first place. And for the trump supporter, I don't fucking care. Trump is an orange hitler with less charm and a worse haircut than the original. To those who support him: fuck you very much, from the rest of the fucking world.
- dalke 10y ago
  Consider the Hollywood blacklist, where people with communist ties or sympathies were barred from working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist . I think danarmak's points also apply in that situation. Pete Seeger was found in contempt of Congress for using his First Amendment right of free association: > "I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this." But therein you see a problem with danarmak's proposal "If a person does something which is indisputably legal, in their private capacity, that should not be allowed (by the law) to affect their public standing or their job". What sort of law would be strong enough that it could stand up to the future equivalent of the McCarthy Era? None, of course, as its the politicians who make the law. My understanding of these sorts of laws are that they serve mostly to protect the status quo. Those who have power and influence don't need protection. Those who have little power can mostly only protest and boycott, which is a power danarmak wants to reduce.
  - danarmak 10y ago
    It is true that the law in general is a very imperfect tool and standard, for all the reasons you mention and more. But I do think many specific laws are good ones. For example, various laws says it's illegal to not hire or to fire someone based on some protected characteristics like e.g. race, gender or sexual orientation. (I'm aware that this isn't universal among US states.) I think this is a good thing. And I think political opinions (expressed in a private capacity) should also be a protected category, and for broadly the same reasons: to prevent segregation, to protect minorities, to encourage healthy democracy as opposed to all-out political war.
    - dalke 10y ago
      My primary criticism was that you haven't shown that tech in the US is any different in this regard than other fields. I again assert that you (and I) have heard of these case primarily because we are in tech. FWIW, while Israel has laws which prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel ), for most part of the US "Political speech and activity, especially in private sector employment, is not well protected by anti-retaliation laws". Quoting http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activity http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activ... .
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

stephenr 10y ago

When the two examples you have are a guy donating for a bigoted discriminatory and unconstitutional law, and a guy donating to a group supporting a racist, bigoted, sexist sociopath who wants to play mr president, it's not much of an argument. Even in the hypothetical: freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences of speech. I did say, no one says they cant do what they do, they just shouldn't be surprised when they get a reaction.

danarmak 10y ago
The two cases are great examples of democracy. People want to elect a president that other people (like you) greatly disagree with. People want to vote for an amendment to their state constitution. (It was later ruled unconstitutional by the US Supreme Court, but before that it had been ruled constitutional by the state supreme court in Strauss v. Horton, so there seemed to be legitimate room for debate.) California Proposition 8 passed the public vote with 52% in favor, and Trump consistently polls above 40% today. Do you support boycotting every company where at least one executive officer belongs to a 40%+ part of the population? Do you really expect that, if applied fairly, this wouldn't result in boycotting almost all companies in the market? Would you support policies routinely vetting the private behavior of company executives? Are you alright with the other camp boycotting companies whose executives hold opinions you support? I believe that people should be able to employ, be employed, and not be ostracized, regardless of their private strictly legal and in fact mainstream political opinions, however odious those opinions may be to a subset of the population. Quite apart from morals, it's the only workable equilibrium in a politically polarized society.
- stephenr 10y ago
  what is your solution? Force people to do business with people/companies against their will? I'm not sure about America but in the developed world, there are laws against shit like "I didn't hire him because he voted for Reagan" There are not laws forcing people/companies to do business regardless of their opinions on the behaviour/actions of a company/CEO/etc. Are you really saying allowing people to boycott things based on their own beliefs is bad?
  - danarmak 10y ago
    Of course we can't force people (by law) to do business with someone, and shouldn't try. What we should do is establish strong social norms against this kind of discrimination and against this kind of net outrage mob hounding of people. Speak out against them, support victims (regardless of political affiliation), try not to give in when targeted.
    - stephenr 10y ago
      Trumps supporters are victims because sane people don't want to support those who support a sociopath. Gotcha. Edit: also: I still don't understand why you believe there is a problem. If someone is actually fired because they support a particular party/etc that would be (in sane countries) illegal. If it's not illegal in your country, maybe you should fix that before insisting that anything anyone says should be automatically free of consequences. That is a very slippery fucking slope, especially with the sort of shit trump supporters say aleady. As for the specific issues: Brendan resigned from Mozilla because he couldn't "manage effectively", aka the staff in Mozilla didn't respect him because of his prior actions. It was the staff in Mozilla who publicised his donation - they knew what he'd done before the shit storm that happened online. If you can't unfuck yourself from a situation where people don't respect you, maybe you didn't have the chops to be CEO in the first place. And for the trump supporter, I don't fucking care. Trump is an orange hitler with less charm and a worse haircut than the original. To those who support him: fuck you very much, from the rest of the fucking world.
dalke 10y ago
Consider the Hollywood blacklist, where people with communist ties or sympathies were barred from working. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist . I think danarmak's points also apply in that situation. Pete Seeger was found in contempt of Congress for using his First Amendment right of free association: > "I am not going to answer any questions as to my association, my philosophical or religious beliefs or my political beliefs, or how I voted in any election, or any of these private affairs. I think these are very improper questions for any American to be asked, especially under such compulsion as this." But therein you see a problem with danarmak's proposal "If a person does something which is indisputably legal, in their private capacity, that should not be allowed (by the law) to affect their public standing or their job". What sort of law would be strong enough that it could stand up to the future equivalent of the McCarthy Era? None, of course, as its the politicians who make the law. My understanding of these sorts of laws are that they serve mostly to protect the status quo. Those who have power and influence don't need protection. Those who have little power can mostly only protest and boycott, which is a power danarmak wants to reduce.
- danarmak 10y ago
  It is true that the law in general is a very imperfect tool and standard, for all the reasons you mention and more. But I do think many specific laws are good ones. For example, various laws says it's illegal to not hire or to fire someone based on some protected characteristics like e.g. race, gender or sexual orientation. (I'm aware that this isn't universal among US states.) I think this is a good thing. And I think political opinions (expressed in a private capacity) should also be a protected category, and for broadly the same reasons: to prevent segregation, to protect minorities, to encourage healthy democracy as opposed to all-out political war.
  - dalke 10y ago
    My primary criticism was that you haven't shown that tech in the US is any different in this regard than other fields. I again assert that you (and I) have heard of these case primarily because we are in tech. FWIW, while Israel has laws which prohibit discrimination based on political beliefs (according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Israel ), for most part of the US "Political speech and activity, especially in private sector employment, is not well protected by anti-retaliation laws". Quoting http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activity http://www.workplacefairness.org/retaliation-political-activ... .

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]