4 ms·

> "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguis

> "The law" is ultimately just a particular form of social pressure, there's nothing magic about it. This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. > If someone is forced into bankruptcy because a twitter campaign got them fired, that's practically the same consequence No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't).

lmm 7y ago
> This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. Again, though, any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reasons. While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments, they're already making credible threats of violence, so that's not the clear bright line you seem to think it is. > No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't). I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, as proven by the very existence of protected classes. It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things.
- root_axis 7y ago
  > any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reason Every interaction with another human falls under the label of "social", the word ceases to mean anything when used to describe everything, abusing that rhetorical ambiguity to equate tweets on the internet with civil order enforced by armed agents of the state is absurd. > While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments Correct, not even close, and never will be in any conceivable future. The idea that a twitter mob could somehow ever be comparable in power to a government demonstrates a serious disconnection from reality and the power that governments exercise over their people all around the world and all through the annals of history. > I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, So what are you proposing? > It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things. An asshole is not a "class" of people, it's a behavioral disposition. Nobody needs to be an asshole. The social advantages of being an asshole come with the consequences of people not wanting to interact with you.
  - lmm 7y ago
    > Correct, not even close, and never will be in any conceivable future. The idea that a twitter mob could somehow ever be comparable in power to a government demonstrates a serious disconnection from reality and the power that governments exercise over their people all around the world and all through the annals of history. That's a trick of definitions: when an organisation acquires particular kinds of power we call it a "government", regardless of how it's structured or operates. Historically it's completely normal for states to be taken over by religious groups, by social movements, by corporations, by criminal gangs. And in most of history there has been very little respect for freedom of speech, for the right to say unpopular things and not suffer devastating personal consequences, for the idea that there's such a thing as a loyal opposition, or an honest mistake. If we believe that's important - and I do - then it's not enough to just protect speech from governments. Maybe 200 years ago only governments and major religions wielded enough power to ruin lives, and so constitutional protections and strict laws on freedom of religion were enough. But in these days of megacorps and large social movements that's no longer true. > So what are you proposing? That firings should be required to be for cause, and there should be reasonable protections even for fired workers in terms of notice periods, payments and the like - similar to the way it works in France (or most developed countries really). That really vital things (in particular, healthcare) should be done by a provider that's obliged to serve everyone rather than a private company that's permitted to arbitrarily withdraw coverage. > An asshole is not a "class" of people, it's a behavioral disposition. Or it's anyone you don't like. In any case, the rationale for protected classes isn't about the fact that they're classes, it's about the risk of suffering coordinated action from others - which nowadays applies to people who've said unpopular things too. > Nobody needs to be an asshole. Nobody needs to be a particular religion, but that's still a protected class.

lmm 7y ago

> This is wrong. The "magic" (i.e. the thing that distinguishes it from social pressure) is threat of violence or imprisonment from the state if you don't comply with the law. Again, though, any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reasons. While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments, they're already making credible threats of violence, so that's not the clear bright line you seem to think it is. > No it isn't. You are employed at-will by your employer, they are free to fire you if they decide they want to do that, but they don't have to. If the business makes the decision to fire you based on public pressure that's their right unless you're making an argument for stricter labor laws (I suspect you aren't). I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, as proven by the very existence of protected classes. It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things.

root_axis 7y ago
> any violence is ultimately going to be carried out by humans for social reason Every interaction with another human falls under the label of "social", the word ceases to mean anything when used to describe everything, abusing that rhetorical ambiguity to equate tweets on the internet with civil order enforced by armed agents of the state is absurd. > While these online outrage mobs are, as yet, nowhere near as powerful as governments Correct, not even close, and never will be in any conceivable future. The idea that a twitter mob could somehow ever be comparable in power to a government demonstrates a serious disconnection from reality and the power that governments exercise over their people all around the world and all through the annals of history. > I am, among other things; at-will employment has always seemed unreasonable to me, So what are you proposing? > It's popular to say "asshole isn't a protected class", but as far as I can see the whole rationale for protected classes applies just as strongly to those who have said legal but unpopular things. An asshole is not a "class" of people, it's a behavioral disposition. Nobody needs to be an asshole. The social advantages of being an asshole come with the consequences of people not wanting to interact with you.
- lmm 7y ago
  > Correct, not even close, and never will be in any conceivable future. The idea that a twitter mob could somehow ever be comparable in power to a government demonstrates a serious disconnection from reality and the power that governments exercise over their people all around the world and all through the annals of history. That's a trick of definitions: when an organisation acquires particular kinds of power we call it a "government", regardless of how it's structured or operates. Historically it's completely normal for states to be taken over by religious groups, by social movements, by corporations, by criminal gangs. And in most of history there has been very little respect for freedom of speech, for the right to say unpopular things and not suffer devastating personal consequences, for the idea that there's such a thing as a loyal opposition, or an honest mistake. If we believe that's important - and I do - then it's not enough to just protect speech from governments. Maybe 200 years ago only governments and major religions wielded enough power to ruin lives, and so constitutional protections and strict laws on freedom of religion were enough. But in these days of megacorps and large social movements that's no longer true. > So what are you proposing? That firings should be required to be for cause, and there should be reasonable protections even for fired workers in terms of notice periods, payments and the like - similar to the way it works in France (or most developed countries really). That really vital things (in particular, healthcare) should be done by a provider that's obliged to serve everyone rather than a private company that's permitted to arbitrarily withdraw coverage. > An asshole is not a "class" of people, it's a behavioral disposition. Or it's anyone you don't like. In any case, the rationale for protected classes isn't about the fact that they're classes, it's about the risk of suffering coordinated action from others - which nowadays applies to people who've said unpopular things too. > Nobody needs to be an asshole. Nobody needs to be a particular religion, but that's still a protected class.