6 ms·

There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this piece are

There's a disconnect that keeps running through a lot of the arguments from the conservative side which I don't understand. The examples given in this piece are a) the right of street protesters to be heard without being attacked by government officers vs b) the right of people to not get fired for what they say by private organizations like the New York Times. This disconnect keeps coming up, and it's extra weird because conservatives have traditionally been the bigger proponents of corporate freedom to fire whoever they want. But now many conservatives seem to want some kind of new labor protection laws. Maybe what is going on is not really about free speech but more about quickly changing cultural norms. It used to be OK to make blatant racist and sexist jokes in an office setting but at some point that changed and now you can easily get fired over it. That's not a change in free speech restrictions, it's a change in what is considered culturally acceptable behavior between private actors. But changing cultural norms aren't something that should be somehow regulated by the government.

nmfisher 6y ago
True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But you're also right that many modern "conservatives" don't grasp the distinction.
- syshum 6y ago
  it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper" Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary. These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy
  - pas 6y ago
    The world is not this simple. There are some speech that should be protected and some that maybe should be banned. (Eg. criticism of the workplace [see also calls for forming a labor union], whistle-blowing of illegal activities ... and on the other end, maybe abusing and harassing people based on their skin color, voice, and other elements of one's "phenotype", and maybe there should be some very basic beliefs that ought to be protected.) Both of these absolutes (full libertari[ani]sm and full authoritarianism) are doomed to fail, and even throwing them out as some nice first principles to start from seems to be borderline useless. (At least it seems the last 10+ years of politics is throwing memes at each other that have been reduced to absurdity.)
  - notahacker 6y ago
    And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence, the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections in the sphere of employment. You'll find a large set of people with a general presumption in favour of protecting political speech including some which they find disagreeable, but even involves debating where to draw the line, because speech which is ostensibly political can to differing degrees also be abusive, damaging to staff relations, bringing the company into disrepute, contrary to professional ethics, directly undermining the organization's position etc. And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate, and you'll usually find plenty of people arguing for government protections on the freedom of conscience for racists but not homosexuals and vice versa. Some people believe in restricting employers with more general presumptions in favour of speech than others, but assessing which ones and why is more useful than simply claiming the other side is more authoritarian, especially when those arguing for fire-at-will for any reason also consider themselves to be doing so on libertarian grounds.
    - syshum 6y ago
      >>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? >>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections. I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law. A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences >And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law. > Some people believe in restricting employers Yes and those people are called Authoritarians
54351623 6y ago
You're exactly right and I think it's important to consider that the LA Times' position as a sort of authority figure when it comes to speech (being a major news source/ media entity) may be an underlying interest in how the arguments made in this article are put forward. I imagine a whole lot of editors of the last few newspapers that are independently owned had some very interesting thoughts when the workers at New York Times pushed out some of it's leadership over an article Tom Cotton could have just as easily put on his website. I agree that it's about cultural norms but I think the cultural norms are the cost and limiting factors of free expression being greatly reduced. I imagine an entity like the LA Times has an interest in defining how free speech works in the news room and subsequently the readers of that news source. I also imagine that idea of free speech would protect leadership in the newsroom from subordinates if everything published has to go through said leadership.
- SiempreViernes 6y ago
  > idea of free speech would protect leadership in the newsroom from subordinates If protecting the management from the workers is your goal, typically you invoke the right of the owners to dictate how work is organised, I'm not sure how you make that into a "free speech" issue. As the work of the editor is explicitly to direct and reshape the speech of the employees under them, why would "free speech" protect the ones doing the censoring?
  - 54351623 6y ago
    That's the point it wouldn't. It's not a question of free speech but rather the assurance that periodical's leadership can be protected from their workers or general criticism about poor direction that their periodicals are taking or are being forced to take due to changes in the media landscape. Put more succinctly, imagine someone blaming the failure of their news organization on their readers opinions of free speech as opposed to their own shoddy workmanship, or an inability to compete with more modern forms of media. And I was specifically referring to the ideas of free speech that the news outlet is striving to defend or at least define.
belorn 6y ago
The disconnect goes away if we see person opinions as something people are rather than something which people say. This happens also to be a common thread in the disagreement between left and right. When something becomes a voluntary chosen action it can be controlled, limited and stopped by the government. When something is a personal trait it should be protected and given status as a right. To take the example of a street protestor. Should companies be allowed to fire political activists? When we see it as a personal trait a lot of people find the answer as no. Should companies be allowed to fire people who choosed to say bad things? Many say yes. The issue becomes how people frame the question and what values get attached to it.
- nabla9 6y ago
  Yes. Person with Tourette should not be fired for saying things that others don't. (discussing norms, not free speech as legal rights below) The norms in private organizations (companies, universities, associations) are different for different people. 1) If you are representative of an organization, what you say in private reflects your organization and it's reputation. It's established norm that personal values and opinions publicly expressed can't deviate from that of the organization. This includes many low level customer service jobs. 2) Low level managers, teachers and coaches are in position of authority and their whole identity is involved. Leader can shout their mouth about their political opinions and people working under them are not in position to talk back. That's not proper position to be politically opinionated. There are some norms limiting to their self expression in private, but it's usually context dependent. 3) Low level workers without public position or responsibilities over other should get most leeway to be whatever they are outside the job. When I was working in the floor level warehouse, the coffee break was the most politically diverse environment. Anarchist and far-right guy sitting next to each other debating angrily about women's rights, unions, Jews, holocaust. Nobody considered taking it upstairs because it was offensive. Only cases of bullying were considered out of line.
tomp 6y ago
The disconnect is, that there are some opinions that are protected (religion, and recently also gender identity) but there are other opinions that aren't (political views or anything roughly correlated with any political party). (I use "opinion" in a broad sense here, as "something you choose" as opposed to "something you're born with" such as sex and race) There are obvious downsides of firing people for any such opinion that (1) people feel extremely passionately about, but is (2) ultimately irrelevant to the job at hand.
alexandercrohde 6y ago
Yeah, but this is to some extent just an interesting side-note. At least I know several people who are liberals but don't agree with lacking "political correctness" being sufficient cause for "canceling."
Chris2048 6y ago
Isn't there an inherently coercive/disruptive nature to street protesting, especially wrt large partisan groups? e.g. extinction rebellion holding up bus/rail services, BLM protesters wearing masks, chanting and large groups showing up at sensitive places, such as the white-house, or police-officers homes.
diehunde 6y ago
I would go even further than acceptable behavior. Today we know for sure racism and sexism are dangerous beliefs. If I own a company I don't want that people around. So unless there's a law that forbids me to fire someone for being openly racist or sexist, I will fire their asses without thinking twice.

nmfisher 6y ago

True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But you're also right that many modern "conservatives" don't grasp the distinction.

syshum 6y ago
it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem "proper" Authority minded people (or Authoritarian) can not do this, they believe their worldview is the "right" or "correct" world view and that must be imposed upon everyone, by force if necessary. These 2 mindsets exist in both "Left" and "Right" political orthodoxy
- pas 6y ago
  The world is not this simple. There are some speech that should be protected and some that maybe should be banned. (Eg. criticism of the workplace [see also calls for forming a labor union], whistle-blowing of illegal activities ... and on the other end, maybe abusing and harassing people based on their skin color, voice, and other elements of one's "phenotype", and maybe there should be some very basic beliefs that ought to be protected.) Both of these absolutes (full libertari[ani]sm and full authoritarianism) are doomed to fail, and even throwing them out as some nice first principles to start from seems to be borderline useless. (At least it seems the last 10+ years of politics is throwing memes at each other that have been reduced to absurdity.)
- notahacker 6y ago
  And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence, the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections in the sphere of employment. You'll find a large set of people with a general presumption in favour of protecting political speech including some which they find disagreeable, but even involves debating where to draw the line, because speech which is ostensibly political can to differing degrees also be abusive, damaging to staff relations, bringing the company into disrepute, contrary to professional ethics, directly undermining the organization's position etc. And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate, and you'll usually find plenty of people arguing for government protections on the freedom of conscience for racists but not homosexuals and vice versa. Some people believe in restricting employers with more general presumptions in favour of speech than others, but assessing which ones and why is more useful than simply claiming the other side is more authoritarian, especially when those arguing for fire-at-will for any reason also consider themselves to be doing so on libertarian grounds.
  - syshum 6y ago
    >>And yet the 'liberty minded' person in this case is the one imposing a government restriction upon what individuals and businesses might otherwise choose to do. Where do you draw this conclusion from? What government restrictions do you believe liberty minded people are calling for? >>Since virtually nobody agrees that no form of speech or other expression should ever be a fireable offence the debate actually comes down to discussion of which types of speech should and should have protections. I am not sure what this is even referencing. I have read this line a few times and I am not sure what you are trying to convey It sounds like this is a restatement of the grandparent ,you are talking about what a company should or should not do, vs what a government should or should not prohibit with the force of law. A company choosing to fire someone for X speech is vastly different than a government protecting an employee from being fired, or forcing a company to fire someone for said speech Government action is authoritarian by its very nature. I do not believe people should be fired from their jobs for their speech but at the same time I do not support government intervention in the free association of those businesses, that would have far worse consequences >And of course who should be given stronger-than-average protections is also a matter of some debate It should not be a debate at all, Equality under the law should be universal. This is one of the core problems today is we keep trying to fix past injustice with more injustice under the law The only way to break the cycle is to make every individual the exact same under the law. > Some people believe in restricting employers Yes and those people are called Authoritarians

54351623 6y ago

You're exactly right and I think it's important to consider that the LA Times' position as a sort of authority figure when it comes to speech (being a major news source/ media entity) may be an underlying interest in how the arguments made in this article are put forward. I imagine a whole lot of editors of the last few newspapers that are independently owned had some very interesting thoughts when the workers at New York Times pushed out some of it's leadership over an article Tom Cotton could have just as easily put on his website. I agree that it's about cultural norms but I think the cultural norms are the cost and limiting factors of free expression being greatly reduced. I imagine an entity like the LA Times has an interest in defining how free speech works in the news room and subsequently the readers of that news source. I also imagine that idea of free speech would protect leadership in the newsroom from subordinates if everything published has to go through said leadership.

SiempreViernes 6y ago
> idea of free speech would protect leadership in the newsroom from subordinates If protecting the management from the workers is your goal, typically you invoke the right of the owners to dictate how work is organised, I'm not sure how you make that into a "free speech" issue. As the work of the editor is explicitly to direct and reshape the speech of the employees under them, why would "free speech" protect the ones doing the censoring?
- 54351623 6y ago
  That's the point it wouldn't. It's not a question of free speech but rather the assurance that periodical's leadership can be protected from their workers or general criticism about poor direction that their periodicals are taking or are being forced to take due to changes in the media landscape. Put more succinctly, imagine someone blaming the failure of their news organization on their readers opinions of free speech as opposed to their own shoddy workmanship, or an inability to compete with more modern forms of media. And I was specifically referring to the ideas of free speech that the news outlet is striving to defend or at least define.

belorn 6y ago

The disconnect goes away if we see person opinions as something people are rather than something which people say. This happens also to be a common thread in the disagreement between left and right. When something becomes a voluntary chosen action it can be controlled, limited and stopped by the government. When something is a personal trait it should be protected and given status as a right. To take the example of a street protestor. Should companies be allowed to fire political activists? When we see it as a personal trait a lot of people find the answer as no. Should companies be allowed to fire people who choosed to say bad things? Many say yes. The issue becomes how people frame the question and what values get attached to it.

nabla9 6y ago
Yes. Person with Tourette should not be fired for saying things that others don't. (discussing norms, not free speech as legal rights below) The norms in private organizations (companies, universities, associations) are different for different people. 1) If you are representative of an organization, what you say in private reflects your organization and it's reputation. It's established norm that personal values and opinions publicly expressed can't deviate from that of the organization. This includes many low level customer service jobs. 2) Low level managers, teachers and coaches are in position of authority and their whole identity is involved. Leader can shout their mouth about their political opinions and people working under them are not in position to talk back. That's not proper position to be politically opinionated. There are some norms limiting to their self expression in private, but it's usually context dependent. 3) Low level workers without public position or responsibilities over other should get most leeway to be whatever they are outside the job. When I was working in the floor level warehouse, the coffee break was the most politically diverse environment. Anarchist and far-right guy sitting next to each other debating angrily about women's rights, unions, Jews, holocaust. Nobody considered taking it upstairs because it was offensive. Only cases of bullying were considered out of line.

tomp 6y ago

The disconnect is, that there are some opinions that are protected (religion, and recently also gender identity) but there are other opinions that aren't (political views or anything roughly correlated with any political party). (I use "opinion" in a broad sense here, as "something you choose" as opposed to "something you're born with" such as sex and race) There are obvious downsides of firing people for any such opinion that (1) people feel extremely passionately about, but is (2) ultimately irrelevant to the job at hand.

alexandercrohde 6y ago

Yeah, but this is to some extent just an interesting side-note. At least I know several people who are liberals but don't agree with lacking "political correctness" being sufficient cause for "canceling."

Chris2048 6y ago

Isn't there an inherently coercive/disruptive nature to street protesting, especially wrt large partisan groups? e.g. extinction rebellion holding up bus/rail services, BLM protesters wearing masks, chanting and large groups showing up at sensitive places, such as the white-house, or police-officers homes.

diehunde 6y ago

I would go even further than acceptable behavior. Today we know for sure racism and sexism are dangerous beliefs. If I own a company I don't want that people around. So unless there's a law that forbids me to fire someone for being openly racist or sexist, I will fire their asses without thinking twice.