5 ms·
This is sort of ridiculous. You don't have to keep someone on your payroll who is actively speaking out about white supremacy. There should be social conseque
by pfisch 9y ago
This is sort of ridiculous. You don't have to keep someone on your payroll who is actively speaking out about white supremacy.
There should be social consequences for your speech, just not legal ones.
- AlgorithmicTime 9y agoSocial censorship of speech is nearly as dangerous as government censorship of speech. We need to have a robust norm of not trying to silence people for dissenting viewpoints
- pfisch 9y agoSo if my employee is advocating murdering me and my entire family that is cool? I have to fund someone who is actively trying to get political support to put me in a concentration camp?
- spacemanmatt 9y agoWe have a robust norm of socially distancing ourselves from disgusting viewpoints. It is absolutely nothing likely being imprisoned for your speech.
- pfisch 9y agoHow am I getting downvotes for not wanting to help fund white supremacy? Who are the readers of this site?
- SilasX 9y ago>This is sort of ridiculous. You don't have to keep someone on your payroll who is actively speaking out about white supremacy. I explicitly agreed with that. Did you see this part? >>That doesn't mean we should force you to keep buying from those whose ideas you don't like. (Note: "keeping someone on your payroll" = "keep buying from them".) >There should be social consequences for your speech, just not legal ones. I just explained how the standard grounding for free speech doesn't distinguish between social vs legal consequences, and how the latter are only one part of the puzzle. If you dispute that logic, I'd like to hear your thinking.