6 ms·

>Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. Why are so many people

>Speculation, which would not be allowed in a court of law, is unfortunately a perfectly acceptable character assassination methodology. Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life? If someone is a jerk, I don't have to maintain a chain-of-custody for the evidence I use to determine that person is a jerk, and I don't have to have sworn testimony from reliable witnesses to apply the jerk label, and I certainly don't need the opinions of a jury of said jerk's peers. Here's a job-keeping pro-tip, free of charge, for everyone: Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired.

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
Because mobs are horrific and that's what you get when people base punishments on speculation. > Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired. Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.
- urbanjunkie 7y ago
  Feel free to not live in this society. You won't be missed.
- kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
  >That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me. I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching. As far as watching what you say, that is the world: 1. As it has always existed. 2. It exists today. 3. Will always exist until the end of time itself. And that will never, ever, change. Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
  - AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
    They used to accuse people of being communists, thus landing them on a blacklist and unable to find work. I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
    - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
      >I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society. Many people seem to be complaining about this. As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying: "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”and he should face no consequences." or "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences." Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".
      - doubleunplussed 7y ago
        It seems perfectly consistent to me that someone worried about people being fired for controversial opinions would not give such an opinion non-anonymously. I don't see what point you're making.
        jessaustin 7y ago
        Yeah this is like the authoritarians who claim that if Snowden really feared for his safety as a whistleblower, then he would be happy to be renditioned to a secret blacksite dungeon for punishment by the TLAs he has offended. Does not compute...
        7y ago
lostjohnny 7y ago
> Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life? Because IRL there's no attorney of defense. You can just throw accusation in the air and somebody else get hurt.
atypicaluser 7y ago
Feel free to believe anyone you meet, or merely hear about, is a jerk. The question is--should being a jerk be a fireable offense?
- SolaceQuantum 7y ago
  "should being a jerk be a fireable offense?" On its face... yes???
lliamander 7y ago
Here's another pro-tip: If you make dishonest or negligent accusations about another person, such that said person suffers materially you can probably* sued for defamation. *IANAL

AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago

Because mobs are horrific and that's what you get when people base punishments on speculation. > Especially if you are a public figure, don't talk about child sex trafficking unless it is to criticize it or else you may be fired. Great. That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me.

urbanjunkie 7y ago
Feel free to not live in this society. You won't be missed.
kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
>That's the kind of society I want to live in, one where I can't say anything for fear of a mob lynching me. I'm sure that's hyperbole because comparing being asked (I assume) to resign after downplaying child sex trafficking is not functionally or morally equivalent to lynching. As far as watching what you say, that is the world: 1. As it has always existed. 2. It exists today. 3. Will always exist until the end of time itself. And that will never, ever, change. Don't conflate raging anonymously online with being able to say whatever you want in public.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 7y ago
  They used to accuse people of being communists, thus landing them on a blacklist and unable to find work. I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society.
  - kilo_bravo_3 7y ago
    >I guess some things never change, including that people think such behavior is a perfectly good way to conduct a society. Many people seem to be complaining about this. As far as I can tell, very few people are filming and posting publicly a video saying: "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I think it is morally absurd to define “rape” in a way that depends on minor details such as which country it was in or whether the victim was 18 years old or 17.”and he should face no consequences." or "My real name is $myActualName, I work at $employer, and I think it is acceptable for Richard Stallman to have said “I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing.” and he should face no consequences." Instead they wave their hands and mutter about "free speech".
    - doubleunplussed 7y ago
      It seems perfectly consistent to me that someone worried about people being fired for controversial opinions would not give such an opinion non-anonymously. I don't see what point you're making.
      - jessaustin 7y ago
        Yeah this is like the authoritarians who claim that if Snowden really feared for his safety as a whistleblower, then he would be happy to be renditioned to a secret blacksite dungeon for punishment by the TLAs he has offended. Does not compute...
      - 7y ago

lostjohnny 7y ago

> Why are so many people obsessed with applying the same standards used in a court to real life? Because IRL there's no attorney of defense. You can just throw accusation in the air and somebody else get hurt.

atypicaluser 7y ago

Feel free to believe anyone you meet, or merely hear about, is a jerk. The question is--should being a jerk be a fireable offense?

SolaceQuantum 7y ago
"should being a jerk be a fireable offense?" On its face... yes???

lliamander 7y ago

Here's another pro-tip: If you make dishonest or negligent accusations about another person, such that said person suffers materially you can probably* sued for defamation. *IANAL