3 ms·

Gay rights are admirable to you. Rights for minorities like Latinos or blacks are admirable to you. But you don’t speak for places like America, which is divers

Gay rights are admirable to you. Rights for minorities like Latinos or blacks are admirable to you. But you don’t speak for places like America, which is diverse enough to politically contemplate whether gay people should be married or have kids, or whether Muslims and immigrants cause no-go zones. Those politicians which advocate for antagonism against Latinos and other minorities are reading the room too.

CPLX 7y ago
That's correct. They're admirable to me. Conversely the idea of adults fucking children is not admirable to MIT. So they fired him. Nobody's talking about censorship, or politicians. We're talking about an organization saying hey we can't have a guy that seems to think adults fucking children is OK being our leader or representative. That's definitely within their rights. You can try to die on some hill of principle here but 10/10 times if you write blog posts saying something like "hey, so pedophilia is not that big of a deal right?" you're going to have some issues in the professional world. Not sure why everyone is pretending to be confused.
- traderjane 7y ago
  > So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there. > Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. I'd characterize your general approach to the issue as "We don't need to debate the morality of a leader because speaking against norms is already disqualifying." So do you want to look at a leader based on whether they simply violate social thinking, or do you want to discuss "fucking children"? But if I'm not mistaken, just discussing this matter for you is a kind of disqualification. And here you are, basically saying that other people are advocating for pedophelia and fucking kids. Is that your instinct for speech? Do you just want to talk <at> people? Bernie Sanders spoke for gay rights at a time when it was a bad issue for any candidate. The advice for him as a campaign consultant would be to shutup, wouldn't it? Is this not a leadership sin?
  - CPLX 7y ago
    Yes Bernie Sanders spoke up for gay rights. That was good, because gay rights are a good thing. Pol Pot advocated genocide. That was bad because genocide is bad. Richard Stallman argued that pedophila was OK. Pedophilia is not OK. It’s really far from OK. Hence the problem. Perhaps you think it’s actually OK as well. Then the two of you agree. If you also advocate for pedophilia in public you may find people don’t want to hire you as well. All this talk of formerly unpopular opinions and leadership only makes sense if you think that the underlying problematic opinion will be vindicated by history, like the other examples cited. I think it won’t. You’re saying this: > We don't need to debate the morality of a leader because speaking against norms is already disqualifying Nope. Didn’t say that. I said this specific norm is well founded and valid. You can’t debate the morality of a leader’s statements in the abstract. There’s no generic class of “norms” there’s just the facts in question. Some statements are morally defensible, some aren’t. Saying it’s OK for adults to have sex with children is a problem, it’s gong to upset people and make them not trust you and be leery of having you represent them. As literally everyone knows.

CPLX 7y ago

That's correct. They're admirable to me. Conversely the idea of adults fucking children is not admirable to MIT. So they fired him. Nobody's talking about censorship, or politicians. We're talking about an organization saying hey we can't have a guy that seems to think adults fucking children is OK being our leader or representative. That's definitely within their rights. You can try to die on some hill of principle here but 10/10 times if you write blog posts saying something like "hey, so pedophilia is not that big of a deal right?" you're going to have some issues in the professional world. Not sure why everyone is pretending to be confused.

traderjane 7y ago
> So you're saying that the only people qualified to be "a leader" are the ones who subscribe to your particular flavour of groupthink and no other? Nice thought policing there. > Yes, I believe publicly advocating for certain things can severely break cultural norms and make it impossible for you to effectively hold a leadership role in an educational or advocacy setting. I'd characterize your general approach to the issue as "We don't need to debate the morality of a leader because speaking against norms is already disqualifying." So do you want to look at a leader based on whether they simply violate social thinking, or do you want to discuss "fucking children"? But if I'm not mistaken, just discussing this matter for you is a kind of disqualification. And here you are, basically saying that other people are advocating for pedophelia and fucking kids. Is that your instinct for speech? Do you just want to talk <at> people? Bernie Sanders spoke for gay rights at a time when it was a bad issue for any candidate. The advice for him as a campaign consultant would be to shutup, wouldn't it? Is this not a leadership sin?
- CPLX 7y ago
  Yes Bernie Sanders spoke up for gay rights. That was good, because gay rights are a good thing. Pol Pot advocated genocide. That was bad because genocide is bad. Richard Stallman argued that pedophila was OK. Pedophilia is not OK. It’s really far from OK. Hence the problem. Perhaps you think it’s actually OK as well. Then the two of you agree. If you also advocate for pedophilia in public you may find people don’t want to hire you as well. All this talk of formerly unpopular opinions and leadership only makes sense if you think that the underlying problematic opinion will be vindicated by history, like the other examples cited. I think it won’t. You’re saying this: > We don't need to debate the morality of a leader because speaking against norms is already disqualifying Nope. Didn’t say that. I said this specific norm is well founded and valid. You can’t debate the morality of a leader’s statements in the abstract. There’s no generic class of “norms” there’s just the facts in question. Some statements are morally defensible, some aren’t. Saying it’s OK for adults to have sex with children is a problem, it’s gong to upset people and make them not trust you and be leery of having you represent them. As literally everyone knows.