3 ms·

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 bette

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.

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.