4 ms·

It is very very sad that this has to even be said, but freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with, diversity means tolerating viewpoints different tha

It is very very sad that this has to even be said, but freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with, diversity means tolerating viewpoints different than yours. Is the US a nation of laws or a nation ruled by mob?

Aeolun 5y ago
In my opinion, looking at the US anywhere in the previous 4 years, we already know the answer to that question.
detaro 5y ago
Way to many people loudly whining about "safe spaces" tend to have a problem with tolerance too as soon as it comes to groups they don't like. (E.g. to take the dude here, are the reports about him harassing women that argue for being childless an example of them not "tolerating things they don't agree with" (they could just tolerate the harassment I suppose), or of him not "tolerating things he doesn't agree with"?) Which is why I describe the "before" as also a kind of "safe spaces", change just shifts who gets pushed out of them. (Still sucks for the one that gets the short end of the stick of course, but that's also not a new thing)
- insert_coin 5y ago
  You don't seem to understand the difference between thought and conduct. If he was harassing "anyone", there are already many laws and many lawyers waiting to take everything he owns from him. The courts are there exactly for that reason. If it's his viewpoints people have a problem with, as seems to be the case by the ample evidence directly from the people demanding his job citing the contents of his book even before having spent one day with the guy, then his actions were not ever in question. So again I ask you in faint hopes you don't keep evading the question, are we a nation ruled by laws or a nation ruled by mob?
  - detaro 5y ago
    If that's the two options: ruled by laws. As you said, the courts are there if what Apple did was against the law. It's just a pretty useless dichotomy, because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. And that's by design. And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing.
    - insert_coin 5y ago
      I don't have a problem with what Apple did, they should be able to fire anyone for any reason without explanation at any time. Apple took the easy way out to avoid more short term damage, and that was their decision to make. > because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. Then we are not a nation of laws, because the room is there for a reason. Judges and juries are there for a reason, to decide how much room is necessary as we cannot police thought, and we shouldn't try. > And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing. Why are you fine with lgbtq being excluded from jobs? You can't have it both ways, two wrongs don't make a right. The law should be the bar, the only bar, not mob anger.

Aeolun 5y ago

In my opinion, looking at the US anywhere in the previous 4 years, we already know the answer to that question.

detaro 5y ago

Way to many people loudly whining about "safe spaces" tend to have a problem with tolerance too as soon as it comes to groups they don't like. (E.g. to take the dude here, are the reports about him harassing women that argue for being childless an example of them not "tolerating things they don't agree with" (they could just tolerate the harassment I suppose), or of him not "tolerating things he doesn't agree with"?) Which is why I describe the "before" as also a kind of "safe spaces", change just shifts who gets pushed out of them. (Still sucks for the one that gets the short end of the stick of course, but that's also not a new thing)

insert_coin 5y ago
You don't seem to understand the difference between thought and conduct. If he was harassing "anyone", there are already many laws and many lawyers waiting to take everything he owns from him. The courts are there exactly for that reason. If it's his viewpoints people have a problem with, as seems to be the case by the ample evidence directly from the people demanding his job citing the contents of his book even before having spent one day with the guy, then his actions were not ever in question. So again I ask you in faint hopes you don't keep evading the question, are we a nation ruled by laws or a nation ruled by mob?
- detaro 5y ago
  If that's the two options: ruled by laws. As you said, the courts are there if what Apple did was against the law. It's just a pretty useless dichotomy, because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. And that's by design. And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing.
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    I don't have a problem with what Apple did, they should be able to fire anyone for any reason without explanation at any time. Apple took the easy way out to avoid more short term damage, and that was their decision to make. > because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. Then we are not a nation of laws, because the room is there for a reason. Judges and juries are there for a reason, to decide how much room is necessary as we cannot police thought, and we shouldn't try. > And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing. Why are you fine with lgbtq being excluded from jobs? You can't have it both ways, two wrongs don't make a right. The law should be the bar, the only bar, not mob anger.