35 ms·

Do you think that political engagement is a game with no consequences, or do you think that there is a point where it would be reasonable to feel unsafe around

Do you think that political engagement is a game with no consequences, or do you think that there is a point where it would be reasonable to feel unsafe around someone with particular political views?

throwaway894345 6y ago
If your "political engagement" is slandering someone to their employer with the express goal of having them terminated, then I think that should come with consequences. But I wouldn't materially punish someone for simply having these kinds of abhorrent beliefs. In other words, if you believe it's okay to harass people for wrongthink you shouldn't be punished, but if you actually do harass people for wrongthink, you should be punished.
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  Clearly I need to spell this out more clearly. Do you believe that support of Trump should be without consequences? I don't have the details of the three cases discussed above, but the lack of detail is exactly the problem: It paints politics as a game that we can supposedly play with no real-world results. I object to that framing (as well as the framing that any degree of "support" for a candidate is equally damning).
  - waheoo 6y ago
    > Do you believe that support of Trump should be without consequences? Yes. You do realise your position violates multiple UN human rights? Take a read through the lot of them. Please. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ People have died to maintain these rights. Please stop trying to tear them down. You're not woke. You're asleep.
    - jaccarmac 6y ago
      Which human rights does my position violate? Please, enlighten me. YOU do realize that human rights don't include a blanket prohibition on people treating you differently due to your political opinions? Also, how do you reconcile these "universal" human rights in a state that violates them?
      - waheoo 6y ago
        They apply to everyone, regardless of political stance. Articles 12, 20, 21, 23, 29. You do realise that while not a blanket prohibition on treating you differently, employment, wellbeing and political leanings are expressly covered for obvious reasons.
        jaccarmac 6y ago
        But I never suggested that Trump supporters should have their employment or wellbeing threatened for their support of Trump... I am merely making the point that support for Trump could reasonably be part of making one's colleagues feel unsafe. Additionally, the fact that political opinion is protected does not mean that a person's politics can be ignored.
Analemma_ 6y ago
Do I think it is reasonable to feel unsafe around someone just for supporting the candidate that 63 million people supported in the last election? No, no I don't.
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  Nope, but I believe there are a lot of horrid people who supported Trump. Providing these three supposed anecdotes serves only to muddy the conversation and peddle the "cancel culture" myth. Do people get fired for stupid reasons? Of course. Some of them even get fired because of stupid reasons that Twitter dug up. But that's a problem with labor rights, not a cultural shift.
  - waheoo 6y ago
    What horrid people? Why do you believe this? They got manipulated by facebook ads. Cancel culture is a myth? Are you following the news at all? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506215/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506215/
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
I would not feel unsafe around someone who voted for Trump, though I might question their morals. I would not feel unsafe around someone who voted for Hillary, though I might question their judgment. I would feel unsafe around someone whose political views were that you should be fired if you voted for Trump. (I would also feel unsafe around someone whose political views were that you should be fired if you voted for Hillary. However, such people are few, and they currently have no traction with the HR department.)
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  Do you grant that some people may feel differently about the politics of Trump, or should we shape our cultural norms (after all, that's what we are talking about when we mention "cancel culture") around what YOU think is reasonable or unreasonable politics?
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    You seem to be implying that we can't shape our cultural norms about what I think is reasonable. That's fair. But we also can't shape them around what people think is reasonable who feel threatened by Trump. I get that some people feel differently about Trump's politics. (Hey, I feel mighty concerned about his politics.) That's why the standard of what's "reasonable behavior" can't be shaped by how everybody feels. Otherwise, it just turns into a contest to see who can proclaim that they feel what they feel more strongly than the other side. At some point, some element of determining what is rationally justified by the circumstances has to come into play. But that's hard, because everyone has radically different ideas of what "the circumstances" actually are. Failing that, the only thing left is existing norms of behavior. And getting someone fired for their politics is well outside of that.
lliamander 6y ago
There are absolutely people who I would feel unsafe around because of their political views! But politics is the process whereby we negotiate our competing beliefs and interests in a society. I can make an effort to silence the folks who make me feel unsafe, but that doesn't make those people go away. Even if they no longer work at my company, they still have a vote. Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish. Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing. Unless that person is actually posing a threat to me through harassment or violence, I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.
- jaccarmac 6y ago
  > Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish. On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms. > Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing. Of course. > I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner. Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.
  - lliamander 6y ago
    > On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. In what sense do you mean they "work"? > Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed. One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety".
    - jaccarmac 6y ago
      > In what sense do you mean they "work"? They reduce the ability of extremists to radicalize young people, for example. On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed. ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized. > One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety". Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.
waheoo 6y ago
I feel far more unsafe around the woke left than I do around supporters of a bumbling idiot.

throwaway894345 6y ago

If your "political engagement" is slandering someone to their employer with the express goal of having them terminated, then I think that should come with consequences. But I wouldn't materially punish someone for simply having these kinds of abhorrent beliefs. In other words, if you believe it's okay to harass people for wrongthink you shouldn't be punished, but if you actually do harass people for wrongthink, you should be punished.

jaccarmac 6y ago
Clearly I need to spell this out more clearly. Do you believe that support of Trump should be without consequences? I don't have the details of the three cases discussed above, but the lack of detail is exactly the problem: It paints politics as a game that we can supposedly play with no real-world results. I object to that framing (as well as the framing that any degree of "support" for a candidate is equally damning).
- waheoo 6y ago
  > Do you believe that support of Trump should be without consequences? Yes. You do realise your position violates multiple UN human rights? Take a read through the lot of them. Please. https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/ People have died to maintain these rights. Please stop trying to tear them down. You're not woke. You're asleep.
  - jaccarmac 6y ago
    Which human rights does my position violate? Please, enlighten me. YOU do realize that human rights don't include a blanket prohibition on people treating you differently due to your political opinions? Also, how do you reconcile these "universal" human rights in a state that violates them?
    - waheoo 6y ago
      They apply to everyone, regardless of political stance. Articles 12, 20, 21, 23, 29. You do realise that while not a blanket prohibition on treating you differently, employment, wellbeing and political leanings are expressly covered for obvious reasons.
      - jaccarmac 6y ago
        But I never suggested that Trump supporters should have their employment or wellbeing threatened for their support of Trump... I am merely making the point that support for Trump could reasonably be part of making one's colleagues feel unsafe. Additionally, the fact that political opinion is protected does not mean that a person's politics can be ignored.

Analemma_ 6y ago

Do I think it is reasonable to feel unsafe around someone just for supporting the candidate that 63 million people supported in the last election? No, no I don't.

jaccarmac 6y ago
Nope, but I believe there are a lot of horrid people who supported Trump. Providing these three supposed anecdotes serves only to muddy the conversation and peddle the "cancel culture" myth. Do people get fired for stupid reasons? Of course. Some of them even get fired because of stupid reasons that Twitter dug up. But that's a problem with labor rights, not a cultural shift.
- waheoo 6y ago
  What horrid people? Why do you believe this? They got manipulated by facebook ads. Cancel culture is a myth? Are you following the news at all? https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506215/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8506215/

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

I would not feel unsafe around someone who voted for Trump, though I might question their morals. I would not feel unsafe around someone who voted for Hillary, though I might question their judgment. I would feel unsafe around someone whose political views were that you should be fired if you voted for Trump. (I would also feel unsafe around someone whose political views were that you should be fired if you voted for Hillary. However, such people are few, and they currently have no traction with the HR department.)

jaccarmac 6y ago
Do you grant that some people may feel differently about the politics of Trump, or should we shape our cultural norms (after all, that's what we are talking about when we mention "cancel culture") around what YOU think is reasonable or unreasonable politics?
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  You seem to be implying that we can't shape our cultural norms about what I think is reasonable. That's fair. But we also can't shape them around what people think is reasonable who feel threatened by Trump. I get that some people feel differently about Trump's politics. (Hey, I feel mighty concerned about his politics.) That's why the standard of what's "reasonable behavior" can't be shaped by how everybody feels. Otherwise, it just turns into a contest to see who can proclaim that they feel what they feel more strongly than the other side. At some point, some element of determining what is rationally justified by the circumstances has to come into play. But that's hard, because everyone has radically different ideas of what "the circumstances" actually are. Failing that, the only thing left is existing norms of behavior. And getting someone fired for their politics is well outside of that.

lliamander 6y ago

There are absolutely people who I would feel unsafe around because of their political views! But politics is the process whereby we negotiate our competing beliefs and interests in a society. I can make an effort to silence the folks who make me feel unsafe, but that doesn't make those people go away. Even if they no longer work at my company, they still have a vote. Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish. Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing. Unless that person is actually posing a threat to me through harassment or violence, I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.

jaccarmac 6y ago
> Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish. On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms. > Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing. Of course. > I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner. Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.
- lliamander 6y ago
  > On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. In what sense do you mean they "work"? > Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed. One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety".
  - jaccarmac 6y ago
    > In what sense do you mean they "work"? They reduce the ability of extremists to radicalize young people, for example. On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed. ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized. > One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety". Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.

waheoo 6y ago

I feel far more unsafe around the woke left than I do around supporters of a bumbling idiot.