7 ms·

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to ma

by bckr 6y ago

And that will be used by shrill persons to claim censorship, etc, etc. However, I claim that the profession of certain opinions should make it impossible to make a living. EDIT: for certain values of "profess", which I'll expand as "go around telling everyone you frequently converse with"

caspper69 6y ago
What happens when it's your opinions that are unpopular?
- sneak 6y ago
  Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.
  - ithkuil 6y ago
    Sure opinions are often wrong. However their correctness is often uncorrelated with their popularity. What we should do though, is to learn to distinguish holding opinions that some people may find offensive, from offending people with the excuse of just voicing our opinions.
  - raffraffraff 6y ago
    Yes, but when somebody has an unpopular opinion that is "wrong", silencing them isn't the way to change their minds. The best thing in the whole world is hearing a debate between two people, and having your mind change as a result of the arguments given.
    - sneak 6y ago
      Declining to continue to employ someone, or be associated with them in public, is not silencing them.
      - jokethrowaway 6y ago
        Exactly, that's discrimination on the grounds of political views. Congratulations, you're against European human rights and against the law of some US states. For the records, even if you hold this opinion, I personally wouldn't care and I would hire you based on how you perform at the interview (or keep you hired if you're an employe of mine). I definitely wouldn't associate with you in public, though (nothing personal, I just don't share your values) - and that's my right.
        oblio 6y ago
        > Congratulations, you're against European human rights and against the law of some US states. Possibly, BUT, if you can prove that a certain employee holding a position causes brand damage and financial losses, I think they can still not hire you, nobody can force them to do that.
        sneak 6y ago
        Being a literal nazi or a member of the kkk or being pro-eugenics is a political viewpoint, and I think those are entirely in-bounds for reasonable employers to discriminate against.
UweSchmidt 6y ago
I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  My guess, Internet commentariat shifted away from live-and-let-live attitudes like (actual) liberalism or (actual) libertarianism. Don't know why, but I see an awful lot more busybodies on here, reddit etc than before. I suspect regression to the mean, aka eternal September, since the Internet and Internet social networks stopped being niche thanks to social media and the startup boom.
  - bbarnett 6y ago
    I think that the type of intellect is the issue. Why? At the start, only highly technical types dominated the Internet. Other types existed, but were the minority. And at the start, the Internet had more, tech only content. Sure, there were funny memes, other silly things, but cat videos didn't take up 99.99% of all non-porn traffic. This type of personality tends to do lots of research, read a lot, where as most of the population never picks up a book, and very rarely reads. And while the Internet forces the average Joe to read, reading a headline is all they do. And can even tolerate. (Note that UN national literary rates, are based upon what a 7th grader can read. An average one too, not a particularly bright one.) Couple this with tiny smartphone displays, where a three paragraph news article looks like a massive wall of text... And, no text reflow in mainline phone browsers due to agendas... And most Internet commentators aren't even able to listen, or understand, the other side. One of the most popular communication methods forces tiny little sentences, forcing even the highly literate to write like Captain Kirk, in halting, disjointed sentences! Then, couple all of this with something else readers / those who enjoy learning, do? Why, they learn history! The history of why you never do this or that, or why thing $x leads to bad outcomes time and time again, which provides significant context to the world. In short? The Internet now belongs to the masses, and that is why it changed.
andrepd 6y ago
It's a hard balance. On one hand it is true that you're not free to profess an opinion if that opinion lets you be fired. On the other hand are your employees / colleagues / fellow citizens supposed to be forced to tolerate anything you say? There's no easy answer.
bckr 6y ago
Woo, this one was a little unpopular, huh? But only just a little. I think a lot of people realize that I mean "no one will hire you", not "it will be illegal to hire you".

by bckr 6y ago

caspper69 6y ago

What happens when it's your opinions that are unpopular?

sneak 6y ago
Opinions are not innate, can shift, and are often wrong.
- ithkuil 6y ago
  Sure opinions are often wrong. However their correctness is often uncorrelated with their popularity. What we should do though, is to learn to distinguish holding opinions that some people may find offensive, from offending people with the excuse of just voicing our opinions.
- raffraffraff 6y ago
  Yes, but when somebody has an unpopular opinion that is "wrong", silencing them isn't the way to change their minds. The best thing in the whole world is hearing a debate between two people, and having your mind change as a result of the arguments given.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Declining to continue to employ someone, or be associated with them in public, is not silencing them.
    - jokethrowaway 6y ago
      Exactly, that's discrimination on the grounds of political views. Congratulations, you're against European human rights and against the law of some US states. For the records, even if you hold this opinion, I personally wouldn't care and I would hire you based on how you perform at the interview (or keep you hired if you're an employe of mine). I definitely wouldn't associate with you in public, though (nothing personal, I just don't share your values) - and that's my right.
      - oblio 6y ago
        > Congratulations, you're against European human rights and against the law of some US states. Possibly, BUT, if you can prove that a certain employee holding a position causes brand damage and financial losses, I think they can still not hire you, nobody can force them to do that.
      - sneak 6y ago
        Being a literal nazi or a member of the kkk or being pro-eugenics is a political viewpoint, and I think those are entirely in-bounds for reasonable employers to discriminate against.

UweSchmidt 6y ago

I remember the days, just 15 years or so ago on Slashdot, people from a similar community as ours would have in their signature the quote: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." I wonder how things changed so quickly and where this may lead us...

beaconstudios 6y ago
My guess, Internet commentariat shifted away from live-and-let-live attitudes like (actual) liberalism or (actual) libertarianism. Don't know why, but I see an awful lot more busybodies on here, reddit etc than before. I suspect regression to the mean, aka eternal September, since the Internet and Internet social networks stopped being niche thanks to social media and the startup boom.
- bbarnett 6y ago
  I think that the type of intellect is the issue. Why? At the start, only highly technical types dominated the Internet. Other types existed, but were the minority. And at the start, the Internet had more, tech only content. Sure, there were funny memes, other silly things, but cat videos didn't take up 99.99% of all non-porn traffic. This type of personality tends to do lots of research, read a lot, where as most of the population never picks up a book, and very rarely reads. And while the Internet forces the average Joe to read, reading a headline is all they do. And can even tolerate. (Note that UN national literary rates, are based upon what a 7th grader can read. An average one too, not a particularly bright one.) Couple this with tiny smartphone displays, where a three paragraph news article looks like a massive wall of text... And, no text reflow in mainline phone browsers due to agendas... And most Internet commentators aren't even able to listen, or understand, the other side. One of the most popular communication methods forces tiny little sentences, forcing even the highly literate to write like Captain Kirk, in halting, disjointed sentences! Then, couple all of this with something else readers / those who enjoy learning, do? Why, they learn history! The history of why you never do this or that, or why thing $x leads to bad outcomes time and time again, which provides significant context to the world. In short? The Internet now belongs to the masses, and that is why it changed.

andrepd 6y ago

It's a hard balance. On one hand it is true that you're not free to profess an opinion if that opinion lets you be fired. On the other hand are your employees / colleagues / fellow citizens supposed to be forced to tolerate anything you say? There's no easy answer.

bckr 6y ago

Woo, this one was a little unpopular, huh? But only just a little. I think a lot of people realize that I mean "no one will hire you", not "it will be illegal to hire you".