5 ms·

You're still free to write whatever you want, no one is taking that away. However, just because you have something to say doesn't mean that I or anyone else ha

by glenda 6y ago

You're still free to write whatever you want, no one is taking that away. However, just because you have something to say doesn't mean that I or anyone else has give it the time of day. I am also free to respond however I'd like, and in some cases there may be many more people that share my opinion rather than yours!

xfitm3 6y ago
I can write whatever I want but there's a good chance I'll get fired for voicing unpopular opinions.
- glenda 6y ago
  That may be the case depending on the opinion you've expressed but that also seems like a conversation between you and your employer at that point.
  - 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
    No one should get fired for voicing wrong political opinion, America needs stronger workers rights.
  - xfitm3 6y ago
    Absolutely not. It's a discussion between me and my peers whom my employer predicts will react negatively if I stay on board. It's my fellow human who wants me to lose my livelihood because I disagree.
    - spopejoy 6y ago
      Nope, it's your bosses' call, 100%. Businesses are dictatorships. What you describe is your read of what you might think your boss will do, but if it is in their interest to keep you, they will keep you, even if your "peers" are hurt and offended. OTOH, if the people you've offended are more important than you, then maybe your job is at risk. But it's at risk anyway in that case. People think "calling HR" is some kind of loaded weapon, but the fact is there are harrassers and all sorts of losers who get called to HR over and over and keep their jobs. HR exists for one reason: protect the management. If you're expendable and easy to fire, then _maybe_ they'll can you, but if you're actually a decent employee they definitely won't if all we're talking about is a brush fire on Slack.
neonate 6y ago
Agreed, but it starts to be a public interest issue when real harm is done to people, such as getting them fired. I also think there is genuine psychological harm being done by mobs online. This is not so hard to see in other contexts, where it would be called bullying or harassment. Consider the cases of high school students publicly informing on their peers and denouncing them. Unfortunately, for political reasons people are trivializing that right now and acting like it's no problem at all, just everyday communication and no one has a right to expect different. That's ironic since I assume most of these people would say that they believe in a politics of empathy. I also think that, contrary to a common objection, there is a genuine free speech issue with denying access to the social media platforms which have grown so large as to become de facto standards for public communication. It's popular right now to say "it's not a free speech issue because they're not the government". But Facebook, Twitter, etc. are the public squares of our time. Private institutions that become that large and monopolistic begin to encroach on the public sector in importance, and it's too legalistic an argument to say that doesn't count because e.g. the first amendment only applies to the government. Those are three areas that go beyond just expressing disagreement with someone, and have elements of actual harm in them. Also, all three are escalating and the logical next steps are worse.
- glenda 6y ago
  It truly depends on what the opinion being expressed is. I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. Personally, I think this is a phase because people will quickly learn that they're just alienating people further. Real, open discussion promotes better understanding for everyone.
  - donw 6y ago
    > I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. There is never a case where the actions of an individual warrant an angry mob. Never. That is the test of morality. Not how well you treat your friends, but how you behave towards the most vile and despicable people in existence. Unquestionable evil. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. The worst and most horrible criminals. All of them deserve a fair trial for their crimes, and equal treatment under the law. Not because we are being "soft" on them. But because we are better than them.
asadkn 6y ago
Depends on whether or not your opinion enrages someone with a massive herd behind them. If you offend someone with a sizable mindless drones as followers, good luck.

by glenda 6y ago

xfitm3 6y ago

I can write whatever I want but there's a good chance I'll get fired for voicing unpopular opinions.

glenda 6y ago
That may be the case depending on the opinion you've expressed but that also seems like a conversation between you and your employer at that point.
- 9HZZRfNlpR 6y ago
  No one should get fired for voicing wrong political opinion, America needs stronger workers rights.
- xfitm3 6y ago
  Absolutely not. It's a discussion between me and my peers whom my employer predicts will react negatively if I stay on board. It's my fellow human who wants me to lose my livelihood because I disagree.
  - spopejoy 6y ago
    Nope, it's your bosses' call, 100%. Businesses are dictatorships. What you describe is your read of what you might think your boss will do, but if it is in their interest to keep you, they will keep you, even if your "peers" are hurt and offended. OTOH, if the people you've offended are more important than you, then maybe your job is at risk. But it's at risk anyway in that case. People think "calling HR" is some kind of loaded weapon, but the fact is there are harrassers and all sorts of losers who get called to HR over and over and keep their jobs. HR exists for one reason: protect the management. If you're expendable and easy to fire, then _maybe_ they'll can you, but if you're actually a decent employee they definitely won't if all we're talking about is a brush fire on Slack.

neonate 6y ago

Agreed, but it starts to be a public interest issue when real harm is done to people, such as getting them fired. I also think there is genuine psychological harm being done by mobs online. This is not so hard to see in other contexts, where it would be called bullying or harassment. Consider the cases of high school students publicly informing on their peers and denouncing them. Unfortunately, for political reasons people are trivializing that right now and acting like it's no problem at all, just everyday communication and no one has a right to expect different. That's ironic since I assume most of these people would say that they believe in a politics of empathy. I also think that, contrary to a common objection, there is a genuine free speech issue with denying access to the social media platforms which have grown so large as to become de facto standards for public communication. It's popular right now to say "it's not a free speech issue because they're not the government". But Facebook, Twitter, etc. are the public squares of our time. Private institutions that become that large and monopolistic begin to encroach on the public sector in importance, and it's too legalistic an argument to say that doesn't count because e.g. the first amendment only applies to the government. Those are three areas that go beyond just expressing disagreement with someone, and have elements of actual harm in them. Also, all three are escalating and the logical next steps are worse.

glenda 6y ago
It truly depends on what the opinion being expressed is. I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. Personally, I think this is a phase because people will quickly learn that they're just alienating people further. Real, open discussion promotes better understanding for everyone.
- donw 6y ago
  > I think this is where our conversation begins to fall apart because there are cases that warrant an angry mob, but usually not. There is never a case where the actions of an individual warrant an angry mob. Never. That is the test of morality. Not how well you treat your friends, but how you behave towards the most vile and despicable people in existence. Unquestionable evil. Stalin. Hitler. Mao. The worst and most horrible criminals. All of them deserve a fair trial for their crimes, and equal treatment under the law. Not because we are being "soft" on them. But because we are better than them.

asadkn 6y ago

Depends on whether or not your opinion enrages someone with a massive herd behind them. If you offend someone with a sizable mindless drones as followers, good luck.