5 ms·

A high profile executive working for a corporation in Iran will be fired and possibly arrested if they start talking about the government's stance on women's ri

A high profile executive working for a corporation in Iran will be fired and possibly arrested if they start talking about the government's stance on women's rights. Likewise in the USA if some executive talks about babies' rights they'll probably be fired and some smear campaign will be launched against them. Likewise in China vocal criticism of the CCP will probably lead to bad consequences. I would encourage Americans to reject this type of culture and embrace freedom of speech and diversity of views. Reduce the number of taboo topics rather than increasing them. This modern blasphemy culture is spreading in many western countries. Reject it before it's too late. Conversations are good. It is how society moves forward. No good ever comes from silencing conversations.

koheripbal 6y ago
I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.
- pas 6y ago
  Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
  - koheripbal 6y ago
    If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
    - pas 6y ago
      I have no problem with citing them. Just as there's traffic court, there could be a your're-a-fucking-bigot court. Enough strikes and you're out. (Yes, the the problem of state-approved reality is very obviously hard. Yet that's basically what Germany does by criminalizing denial of certain facts about WWII.) I'm perfectly aware. There's no irony. It's the dilemma of tolerance. Using oppression to minimize oppression. A chilling effect on undesirable ideas to counter their spread to counter the growth of groups whose presence and actions similarly lead to chilling effect. The not so subtle difference is that one group sometimes commits acts of terror. Yes, giving this capability officially to the state has serious consequences. Though it's not like states doesn't already have the capacity monopolized (and alas it's not like there are no abuses of state capacity without nowadays).
  - kls 6y ago
    The problem is you are calling anyone who does not agree with your definitions, a bigot. Each side of radicals has no self reflection on the fact that they too are radicals.
    - pas 6y ago
      I completely agree that radicals usually lack perspective. I don't see how I call everyone who disagrees a bigot. I'm saying that the very real process of gathering strength of the alt-right works through a lot of channels that have basically one thing in common, which is speaking hateful bullshit. There are people who would benefit from some counter-process. (And a sample of one (koheripbal) who is fine is not a great counter-argument.) I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with this is a bigot. Far from it. Disagreements are healthy, especially constructive criticism.
      - kls 6y ago
        Fair enough, I retract my insinuation of your intent.
pas 6y ago
Constructive conversations are good. A shouting match is not a conversation. Obviously it's a lot harder to allow just one and not the other. And again, it's exactly the nuance that's needed to separate these that are needed when one compares China, Iran, and the USA. Executives ought to be able to express their views freely, also companies/shareholders ought to be able to freely replace executives they deem unfit (a bad fit for society). Plus, there's a nuanced (even seemingly small) difference between state-supported oppression and "cancel culture". Aaaand, finally, there's also a big difference between oppressing voices that call for more civil rights (eg. restrictions on what the state can do) versus voices that call for more state-supported restrictions. Calling for more restrictions on women's rights in the name of babies is still supporting more rights for the state, whereas calling for more transparency, accountability, equality for citizens falls on the the exact opposite of this spectrum. --- The conversation about babies' rights is very hard because that it naturally pits two very special groups against each other, babies vs women. Where the former doesn't have the capacity to represent themselves in any meaningful way. So society at large with its myriad voices tries to stand in for them. Any "executive" that just start talking about babies' rights better be prepared to brandish some big guns of philosophy, because so far this issue is so murky that respectable philosophy stops at "well, it's hard", and all we are left with is the endless lowing and parroting of indoctrinated fundamentalist followers of various religions.
- throwaway3699 6y ago
  > companies/shareholders ought to be able to freely replace executives they deem unfit (a bad fit for society) "A bad fit for society" Seriously. This reads like something straight out of the playbook towards a fascist state.
  - pas 6y ago
    Yet it's also part of the liberal, libertarian, conservative, etc. playbooks too. The difference is protected classes. Libertarian? Nothing is protected. Liberal? Race, gender, other things you can't change are protected. (Disabilities.) Conservative? Traditions are protected.
scruple 6y ago
We don't need a hypothetical. There are high profile Iranians who have been executed, after the confessed to a crime they didn't commit after being tortured, for speaking out against their government. Navid Afkari being the most recent example. For the record, China executes more people than any other country with Iran coming in behind them.

koheripbal 6y ago

I agree. At the end of the day, who are we protecting when we silence hate speech? Are we suggesting that we ourselves cannot handle hearing and rejecting the speech, or are we suggesting that other adults should not even hear hate speech because they might be influenced? Either of those is a profound infantilization of the public. I am capable of hearing hate speech and rejecting it. I trust most other mature adults can do the same. I reject the notion that anyone needs to protect me from hate speech.

pas 6y ago
Umm, have you seen the public recently? If you don't need protection, great! But hate speech emboldens bigots. It has a chilling effect.
- koheripbal 6y ago
  If it emboldens them to commit an illegal act, arrest them. If "emboldens" just means that they are speaking in a venue you frequent, then that isn't a problem. > "It has a chilling effect." The irony is that you are using a term that is actually a consequence of the actions you propose.
  - pas 6y ago
    I have no problem with citing them. Just as there's traffic court, there could be a your're-a-fucking-bigot court. Enough strikes and you're out. (Yes, the the problem of state-approved reality is very obviously hard. Yet that's basically what Germany does by criminalizing denial of certain facts about WWII.) I'm perfectly aware. There's no irony. It's the dilemma of tolerance. Using oppression to minimize oppression. A chilling effect on undesirable ideas to counter their spread to counter the growth of groups whose presence and actions similarly lead to chilling effect. The not so subtle difference is that one group sometimes commits acts of terror. Yes, giving this capability officially to the state has serious consequences. Though it's not like states doesn't already have the capacity monopolized (and alas it's not like there are no abuses of state capacity without nowadays).
- kls 6y ago
  The problem is you are calling anyone who does not agree with your definitions, a bigot. Each side of radicals has no self reflection on the fact that they too are radicals.
  - pas 6y ago
    I completely agree that radicals usually lack perspective. I don't see how I call everyone who disagrees a bigot. I'm saying that the very real process of gathering strength of the alt-right works through a lot of channels that have basically one thing in common, which is speaking hateful bullshit. There are people who would benefit from some counter-process. (And a sample of one (koheripbal) who is fine is not a great counter-argument.) I'm not saying that anyone who disagrees with this is a bigot. Far from it. Disagreements are healthy, especially constructive criticism.
    - kls 6y ago
      Fair enough, I retract my insinuation of your intent.

pas 6y ago

Constructive conversations are good. A shouting match is not a conversation. Obviously it's a lot harder to allow just one and not the other. And again, it's exactly the nuance that's needed to separate these that are needed when one compares China, Iran, and the USA. Executives ought to be able to express their views freely, also companies/shareholders ought to be able to freely replace executives they deem unfit (a bad fit for society). Plus, there's a nuanced (even seemingly small) difference between state-supported oppression and "cancel culture". Aaaand, finally, there's also a big difference between oppressing voices that call for more civil rights (eg. restrictions on what the state can do) versus voices that call for more state-supported restrictions. Calling for more restrictions on women's rights in the name of babies is still supporting more rights for the state, whereas calling for more transparency, accountability, equality for citizens falls on the the exact opposite of this spectrum. --- The conversation about babies' rights is very hard because that it naturally pits two very special groups against each other, babies vs women. Where the former doesn't have the capacity to represent themselves in any meaningful way. So society at large with its myriad voices tries to stand in for them. Any "executive" that just start talking about babies' rights better be prepared to brandish some big guns of philosophy, because so far this issue is so murky that respectable philosophy stops at "well, it's hard", and all we are left with is the endless lowing and parroting of indoctrinated fundamentalist followers of various religions.

throwaway3699 6y ago
> companies/shareholders ought to be able to freely replace executives they deem unfit (a bad fit for society) "A bad fit for society" Seriously. This reads like something straight out of the playbook towards a fascist state.
- pas 6y ago
  Yet it's also part of the liberal, libertarian, conservative, etc. playbooks too. The difference is protected classes. Libertarian? Nothing is protected. Liberal? Race, gender, other things you can't change are protected. (Disabilities.) Conservative? Traditions are protected.

scruple 6y ago

We don't need a hypothetical. There are high profile Iranians who have been executed, after the confessed to a crime they didn't commit after being tortured, for speaking out against their government. Navid Afkari being the most recent example. For the record, China executes more people than any other country with Iran coming in behind them.