3 ms·

"An actor or public figure whose politics I disagree with can and should be publicly criticized, and their suffering some financial harm due to the public boyco

"An actor or public figure whose politics I disagree with can and should be publicly criticized, and their suffering some financial harm due to the public boycotting their work is a legitimate consequence of their views." So you think it's perfectly acceptable to attack an individuals livelihood because you disagree with them? The political climate in the US is split pretty evenly at the moment, so in your view we would have no actors or public figures expressing a political opinion. No matter what the opinion is there would be individuals, like yourself, who disagree with it and therefore the speaker should be cancelled. If everyone felt that way then nobody would be allowed to say anything because all expression would lead to cancellation. This goes completely against freedom of the individual as well as freedom of speech. It is a direct slide into authoritarianism and is diametrically opposed to liberalism. OP is correct you are not a liberal you are an authoritarian.

didibus 5y ago
I think there's different scenarios. 1. Someone loses popularity and thus their business suffers from it. This is totally fine. I'm free not to purchase your books, music, products, services, etc. even if simply because I disagree with you on some things. 2. Someone is fired because people disagree with their ideas or thoughts. Now this can be wrong and it can also be alright: 2.1 Someone expressed an opinion which respected other people's rights, but where a lot of people disagreed with. E.g.: I think we should invest heavily in the military to defend our borders. In this case, this is not acceptable grounds to fire them. People have the right to hold and express their ideas freely without repercussions. 2.2 Someone expressed an opinion aimed at the destruction of other people's rights. E.g.: Black people should not be given equal treatment under the law. Women are not fit to work. White people deserve to rule over others. In this case it is acceptable to fire them, because they attacked other people's rights, and that deserves consequences. BUT not without a fair trial. You still owe a fair trial to prove that they indeed engaged in activities aimed at the destruction of other people's rights. So in this case the person being fired should choose to sue if this happens.

didibus 5y ago

I think there's different scenarios. 1. Someone loses popularity and thus their business suffers from it. This is totally fine. I'm free not to purchase your books, music, products, services, etc. even if simply because I disagree with you on some things. 2. Someone is fired because people disagree with their ideas or thoughts. Now this can be wrong and it can also be alright: 2.1 Someone expressed an opinion which respected other people's rights, but where a lot of people disagreed with. E.g.: I think we should invest heavily in the military to defend our borders. In this case, this is not acceptable grounds to fire them. People have the right to hold and express their ideas freely without repercussions. 2.2 Someone expressed an opinion aimed at the destruction of other people's rights. E.g.: Black people should not be given equal treatment under the law. Women are not fit to work. White people deserve to rule over others. In this case it is acceptable to fire them, because they attacked other people's rights, and that deserves consequences. BUT not without a fair trial. You still owe a fair trial to prove that they indeed engaged in activities aimed at the destruction of other people's rights. So in this case the person being fired should choose to sue if this happens.