4 ms·

People should attack the ideas that people have, not attack the people for having ideas. Theres a huge difference between expressing disagreement with an idea

• bilbo0s 7y ago
  Maybe. But again, so what? People are free to be jerks. That's Freedom of Expression. If people physically attack you, that's one thing. That's crime. If people tell your company they aren't going to purchase your company's products because you work there, that's another thing entirely. That's just Americans exercising their freedom to associate with whomever or whatever they please. That's them exercising their freedom of expression and speech. There's nothing in those actions contrary to constitutional principles. That's what's important, that absolutely no one's constitutional freedoms be restricted.
  • Minor49er 7y ago
    How much information do you have about the employees in any of the companies that you purchase from on a day to day basis? People that you politically disagree with work for all kinds of companies and you normally have no idea. You should either demand that you know about the political leanings of all employees for every company that you purchase from or you should stop advocate targeting individuals through their employers.
    • bilbo0s 7y ago
      That's your particular opinion. Which you are free to have. Other Americans have their particular opinions. Which they are free to have. My primary concern, or my opinion, is that all Americans are able to exercise lawful rights in support of their opinions without governmental interference. I am as supportive of the Nazi as I am of the Feminist in this regard. And the good news, is that the Constitution is equally inclusive. It ensures that everyone gets the right to express themselves, or boycott, or associate with, or ignore, whatever or whomever they please. You may not think so right now, but this is actually a good thing. It really does protect you.
      • Minor49er 7y ago
        If you happen to come across someone touting a point of view that you disagree with, then you decide to try to attack that person's livelihood for it, you better try to find out the beliefs of everyone that you give money to. Say that you come across some guy on Twitter who said that Quake was a bad game. You click around and find out that he works as Big Company Inc and is probably the only one there with this personal opinion. You decide that Big Company Inc should suffer for hiring this guy, so you decide to boycott them. Now, you take your business to Huge Group Co. However, Huge Group Co has a whole floor of people who believe that Quake was never a good game, and they believe it strongly. But they never announce it. You should not be comfortable handing money to them unless your actual goal is to punish people for expressing themselves in places where you might happen to see it.
        • bilbo0s 7y ago
          So what? That point is orthogonal to may primary objective. Which is only to keep the rights to boycott quake, or like quake, or dislike quake, or feel indifferent about quake, open to all Americans. I don't care how they use their rights. I don't even care if they use their rights. I only care that their rights never be infringed by the government. You're talking about strategies for civil disobedience. Which is great. It's just that strategies for use are a layer on top of your rights. In a very real way, the only reason you can talk about strategies, is because you have the rights necessary to freely engage in civil disobedience. This, more fundamental, issue is my primary concern. That the right to any sort of civil disobedience be freely available. I don't care how people use those rights. I mean, obviously right. I mean, not to sound crass, but I don't even care if Nazis hide behind those rights. So why would I care if anyone else uses them? I just care that no one be constrained from using them.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]