5 ms·

>I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to ho

>I struggle to see how the world could be arranged such that we could all hold forth with controversial views, but such that there was never a consequence to holding those views. What would that world look like? It's called not talking politics or religion at work. Or not discriminating against someone because of something unrelated to their job. There is zero conflict of interest between Eich supporting prop 8 and heading the Mozilla foundation. Same as there is zero conflict of interest for Palmer Luckey supporting the leading candidate in the presidential election.

stephenr 10y ago
You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations). Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  >You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Cheers, Of course not. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech. Fair point. Riddle me this: Should we force a baptist cake company to bake a cake for a gay wedding, force a Jewish bakery to bake a swastika cake, and force a Nazi bakery to bake a Jewish cake? If not one. Why should we force one and not the others? If you think the government should force nothing on any baker I agree with you. >Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations). Which people? As far as I know there wasn't any actual fallout beyond saber rattling.
  - stephenr 10y ago
    > Which people? Reich and the guy from oculus who supported the trump group. > Riddle me this What is a "cake for a gay wedding" compared to any other kind of wedding cake? Is there same-sex marzipan I'm not aware of? A baker refusing to bake a cake for someone because they're gay/Jewish is discrimination, and bigotry/racism (religious discrimination if you consider Judaism purely a religion and not an ethnicity/race) Refusing to bake a cake for neonazis would also be discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake of a swastika isn't exactly the same thing - a swastika is imagery associated with one of the greatest war crimes of recorded history. Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business.
    - gnarbarian 10y ago
      >Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business. I'm trying to establish an objective rule for what kinds of discrimination you believe should be legal. You described each situation but you didn't actually make a value judgement (which was the whole point of the question).
      - csallen 10y ago
        Being gay/black/female/disabled/etc isn't a choice, therefore I don't believe businesses should be able to discriminate on that basis. Being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, therefore it doesn't make sense for the government to make laws protecting such groups imo.
        gnarbarian 10y ago
        >being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, I'm not so sure. Maybe they were brought up that way. You can't choose your parents or your religion in that respect. Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not, should it be OK to discriminate against them too?
        csallen 10y ago
        I personally think we live in a deterministic universe and free will is a farce. A serial killer is, ultimately, the product of biological and environmental forces that were out of his control. That said, we still need to draw the line somewhere if we want our laws to be effective. And the universally intuitive place to draw it is between biology and environment. The result is that environmentally unlucky individuals will get screwed so the rest of society can flourish. So yeah, if you had racist parents who brainwashed you with neo-nazi doctrine, I'm fully okay with the government not requiring that you be accepted by society. Religions are a touchy subject for many, but I don't personally believe they should enjoy any special protections. And I say that as an atheist who'd be highly discriminated against by many, many people.
glogla 10y ago
There are limits to that kind of tolerance, though. You shouldn't care what politicians your coworker likes. You shouldn't care what religion your coworker follows. You should care if your coworker is neo-nazi or if he is supporting Islamic State or Westboro Baptist Church. The only diagreement is whether Eich was closer to the former or the latter. I can perfectly imagine people whose rights he wanted to take away to think he's the latter.
- gnarbarian 10y ago
  If you can't draw an objective and distinct line in plain English between where it is acceptable to discriminate and where it is not you shouldn't draw one at all.
- ZoF 10y ago
  You have no evidence he is closer to the former and all this is is justification for cultural Marxism. The only thing that an individual should be judged on at work is actions/comments/etc. made at work. If you'd like to argue otherwise I'd hope you at least have something more formally define-able than 'he was trending towards being a neo-nazi'. I'd also expect you to be able to point to an authority for defining these ideological limits other than the currently loosely defined group-think. Please answer these few scenarios: -Should someone believing and actively promoting pro-life stances(outside of work) be fired? -Should a casual narcotics user on weekends be fired once it's found out he/she uses? -Should someone be fired for having a confederate flag hanging in their living room? What if they're black?
  - orf 10y ago
    Nobody black would hang a confederate flag in their living room.
    - ZoF 10y ago
      Ironically I asked that the because the black people living in the apartment next to me do have a confederate flag in their living room(among _many_ others). They also scream white power around the campfire when drunk though so perhaps not typical.

stephenr 10y ago

You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations). Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech.

gnarbarian 10y ago
>You can't police people's thoughts/feelings. Cheers, Of course not. >Freedom of speech is not freedom from the consequences of such speech. Fair point. Riddle me this: Should we force a baptist cake company to bake a cake for a gay wedding, force a Jewish bakery to bake a swastika cake, and force a Nazi bakery to bake a Jewish cake? If not one. Why should we force one and not the others? If you think the government should force nothing on any baker I agree with you. >Those people both exercised their freedom of speech (via donations). Which people? As far as I know there wasn't any actual fallout beyond saber rattling.
- stephenr 10y ago
  > Which people? Reich and the guy from oculus who supported the trump group. > Riddle me this What is a "cake for a gay wedding" compared to any other kind of wedding cake? Is there same-sex marzipan I'm not aware of? A baker refusing to bake a cake for someone because they're gay/Jewish is discrimination, and bigotry/racism (religious discrimination if you consider Judaism purely a religion and not an ethnicity/race) Refusing to bake a cake for neonazis would also be discrimination. Refusing to bake a cake of a swastika isn't exactly the same thing - a swastika is imagery associated with one of the greatest war crimes of recorded history. Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business.
  - gnarbarian 10y ago
    >Also, you're in the wrong direction anyway. A business refusing service isn't the same as a consumer refusing to use a business. I'm trying to establish an objective rule for what kinds of discrimination you believe should be legal. You described each situation but you didn't actually make a value judgement (which was the whole point of the question).
    - csallen 10y ago
      Being gay/black/female/disabled/etc isn't a choice, therefore I don't believe businesses should be able to discriminate on that basis. Being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, therefore it doesn't make sense for the government to make laws protecting such groups imo.
      - gnarbarian 10y ago
        >being a neo-nazi, a racist, a nudist, a hippy, a Michael Jackson fan, etc are choices, I'm not so sure. Maybe they were brought up that way. You can't choose your parents or your religion in that respect. Muslims have a choice to be Muslim or not, should it be OK to discriminate against them too?
        csallen 10y ago
        I personally think we live in a deterministic universe and free will is a farce. A serial killer is, ultimately, the product of biological and environmental forces that were out of his control. That said, we still need to draw the line somewhere if we want our laws to be effective. And the universally intuitive place to draw it is between biology and environment. The result is that environmentally unlucky individuals will get screwed so the rest of society can flourish. So yeah, if you had racist parents who brainwashed you with neo-nazi doctrine, I'm fully okay with the government not requiring that you be accepted by society. Religions are a touchy subject for many, but I don't personally believe they should enjoy any special protections. And I say that as an atheist who'd be highly discriminated against by many, many people.

glogla 10y ago

There are limits to that kind of tolerance, though. You shouldn't care what politicians your coworker likes. You shouldn't care what religion your coworker follows. You should care if your coworker is neo-nazi or if he is supporting Islamic State or Westboro Baptist Church. The only diagreement is whether Eich was closer to the former or the latter. I can perfectly imagine people whose rights he wanted to take away to think he's the latter.

gnarbarian 10y ago
If you can't draw an objective and distinct line in plain English between where it is acceptable to discriminate and where it is not you shouldn't draw one at all.
ZoF 10y ago
You have no evidence he is closer to the former and all this is is justification for cultural Marxism. The only thing that an individual should be judged on at work is actions/comments/etc. made at work. If you'd like to argue otherwise I'd hope you at least have something more formally define-able than 'he was trending towards being a neo-nazi'. I'd also expect you to be able to point to an authority for defining these ideological limits other than the currently loosely defined group-think. Please answer these few scenarios: -Should someone believing and actively promoting pro-life stances(outside of work) be fired? -Should a casual narcotics user on weekends be fired once it's found out he/she uses? -Should someone be fired for having a confederate flag hanging in their living room? What if they're black?
- orf 10y ago
  Nobody black would hang a confederate flag in their living room.
  - ZoF 10y ago
    Ironically I asked that the because the black people living in the apartment next to me do have a confederate flag in their living room(among _many_ others). They also scream white power around the campfire when drunk though so perhaps not typical.