6 ms·

Political philosophy is not a protected status, nor should it be, and private entities should not be under pressure to give up their freedom of association. Con

• classicsnoot 8y ago
  "If [an entity] somehow manages to get blacklisted from [every major player in a given industry], odds are pretty good that's society working as intended." I can see the logic behind your statement, but I think it is easier than you are asserting for zeitgeist to start a ball rolling that cannot be easily stopped in terms of pushing people/actors/organizations out of society for being on the "wrong side."
  • ezrast 8y ago
    Do you have any examples in mind?
    • classicsnoot 8y ago
      I am not invoking Godwin, but I happen to be reading a very interesting book on WWII that focuses largely on the industrial/logistical effort of the main actors. The coverage of Germany's industrial sectors, particularly the aeronautics companies like Messerschmitt, Junkers, etc. is a pretty good example. Looking deeper (read: other sources) shows a world where the political lean of the Order of the Day had massive influence on what products got made, which ideas were given attention and funding, and which people were either supported or blackballed. In 1930s Germany, the engineers and firms that maintained the proper signalling, or political tone, were given a wide berth in deciding what was relevant and irrelevant with little or no consideration for what worked and what did not. This is what sprang to mind when I read your comment.
• philwelch 8y ago
  > Political philosophy is not a protected status, nor should it be, and private entities should not be under pressure to give up their freedom of association. This justifies 80% of McCarthyism. Are you comfortable with this implication?
  • ezrast 8y ago
    If by "justifies" you mean "doesn't explicitly outlaw" then yeah, I am, because libel laws also exist. Is it your position that the real problem with McCarthyism was that actual communist spies were being denied jobs and service? I don't know how else you could be drawing the connection to what you quoted.
    • philwelch 8y ago
      There's no legal burden of proof requirement for firing somebody for suspicion of belonging to a non-protected class. American libel laws also require that, to convict someone of libel, you need to affirmatively prove that the defendant's claims are untrue, particularly if the victim is a public figure. The real problem with McCarthyism is that even actions by non-governmental entities to enforce social norms against genuinely totalitarian ideologies by means that fall within the bounds of the law can still be unjust if they are pursued to extremes.
      • dragonwriter 8y ago
        > American libel laws also require that, to convict someone of libel, you need to affirmatively prove that the defendant's claims are untrue That's true, but potentially misleading: under the civil standard of proof (“preponderance of the evidence”), all the burden of proof means is that you are obligated to provide some evidence from which that conclusion could be drawn. > particularly if the victim is a public figure. No, while there are other things that must be proven when the plaintiff is a public figure or the issue is one of public concern, the degree of responsibility or required proof on the falsity element of libel doesn't change. (What does change, specifically, is about the publisher’s mental state; while for libel more generally mere negligent misreprentation will suffice for libel, for issues of public concern actual malice is required.)
• dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Political philosophy is not a protected status It's not federally protected; state laws vary.