3 ms·
> Suddenly you'll be forced to either accept a code of conduct, or actively choose not to do so. A strange example considering codes of conduct are forcing peo
by flukus 8y ago
> Suddenly you'll be forced to either accept a code of conduct, or actively choose not to do so.
A strange example considering codes of conduct are forcing people to become more apolitcal. They force politics into venues were it didn't exist before.
> The footballer will need to decide whether or not to take a knee during the national anthem
Not kneeling is apolitical, it doesn't mean you condone any stance whatsoever.
I'm getting the impression you only want political opinions that you agree with to be shared, s let's take a real political stance that isn't controversial on HN , "Should society accept homosexuality?". For me that's and easy yes and I'm sure most of HN would agree. I'm going to go out on a limb and assume you do as well, correct? Well a sizeable chunk of your country (which ever one it is), most of the middle east, most of Asia, most of Africa, most of Eastern Europe and much of the Latin America disagree (https://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-homosexuality/ https://www.pewglobal.org/2013/06/04/the-global-divide-on-ho...). Most of the world disagrees in fact.
Are you telling me you want most of them to be spouting "We shouldn't accept homosexuality" on every video of them doing a backflip on a bike?
- alkonaut 8y ago> Not kneeling is apolitical Is it? Who decides that? The athlete might not even know what political position they are taking. Or they might be seen as taking the opposite position as the one they think they are taking. It's all in the eye of the beholder. As soon as enough people believe that not adopting a CoC or not kneeling IS in fact a political stance/statement - then it also is. At that point, it doesn't matter whether a player says "I don't want to take any political side here so I'll just stand, thanks". It's out of their hands. This is an exaggerated example (the CoC one is more reasonable) but I hope you get my point - whether or not you take a political stance might not even be deliberate, or conscious. Some times it might be better to at least do it consciously then.
- flukus 8y agoNow you've expanded the definition of political so much I simply don't care if something is political or not, the word has lost all meaning. You've also completely avoid my question, do you want the majority of the world who don't think society should accept homosexuality to be voicing their opinions more?
- alkonaut 8y ago> You've also completely avoid my question I didn't understand it tbh, and I still don't... I don't consider all opinions to have equal value but I do value people being able to express opinions that I disagree with. That doesn't mean someone should be voicing opinions about e.g. homosexuality in a place where it has no relevance (Typical context: a github issue discussion). In those contexts I just expect everyone to be tolerant/inclusive. And as usual "tolerance" does not extend to "acceptance of intolerance".
- flukus 8y ago> I didn't understand it tbh, and I still don't... The point is to highlight your hypocrisy. You say you want influential people to be more overtly political but you really only want people you agree with to be more overtly political. > That doesn't mean someone should be voicing opinions about e.g. homosexuality in a place where it has no relevance (Typical context: a github issue discussion) This was my point all along, it seems like you do agree that there is such a thing as being apolitical. So why is context only important now? Why is this political position out of context on a GitHub discussion but in context for a football player or someone doing backflips on a bike?