3 ms·

> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence.

> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. There's a line when it comes to social consequences of speech and people like you are conveniently ignoring that fact to avoid having to explain why it should be drawn so cancelling falls on the acceptable side. But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right.

jgwil2 4y ago
>> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" > Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society. > But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right. By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.
- DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
  > By that logic My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop. So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.
  - davorak 4y ago
    > But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either. wesleywt seems to be against this too since removing a legal right like that would require government action and they are againts that as seen in: > I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government. It seems like you put cancelling on the acceptable side of the line when you say: > So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing. While government action would not be acceptable, which I agree with, but I would not call cancelling.
    - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
      > I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing. Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence. You can construct a case where social consequences for an expression of opinion do happen and no human rights are infringed, but I'm not arguing that such cases can't exist, so you aren't really proving anything meaningful there. My point is, to put it clearly: The idea that the right to either free speech or freedom of expression does not guarantee any form of protection from social consequences is completely incorrect. > In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government. That's a cute way of spelling "mob rule". It sounds nice because it talks about avoiding "interference", but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.
      - mlyle 4y ago

jgwil2 4y ago

>> also seem to be against the consequences of that speech, such as being "cancelled" > Getting shot for saying the wrong thing is also just another consequence. Is that also acceptable to you? I'm sure it's not, but that would also mean your whole point is BS. OP never said any consequences were acceptable; we have laws against shooting people so clearly such a consequence is proscribed in civil society. > But the thing is, if you advocate for any personal consequences against the person expressing their opinion, then you're arguing directly against a human right. By that logic, if someone says something racist and then loses friends or a job because of it, that violates their human rights. But surely we cannot force people to associate with someone who says abhorrent things without in turn violating their rights.

DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
> By that logic My logic is that, in order to guarantee the right to freedom of expression, there needs to be a line. The moment the "consequences" of expressing an opinion are predominantly punitive is where it needs to stop. So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either.
- davorak 4y ago
  > But when it turns into losing the right to have any job whatsoever, then no, that's definitely not okay either. wesleywt seems to be against this too since removing a legal right like that would require government action and they are againts that as seen in: > I am for both free speech and getting cancelled for it. In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government. It seems like you put cancelling on the acceptable side of the line when you say: > So no, by my logic, you're totally allowed to not be friends with someone who says something racist. As for losing a job, in an ideal world where this person could just get another job, yes, that'd be acceptable. I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing. While government action would not be acceptable, which I agree with, but I would not call cancelling.
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    > I normally think of cancelling as individuals deciding who they want to associate with and any consequences that flow from that. Which seems to land on the acceptable side of the line you are drawing. Yea but lets not forget the context entirely here; we're talking about a walkout at a university, and people are insinuating that there should be some form of punishment as a consequence. You can construct a case where social consequences for an expression of opinion do happen and no human rights are infringed, but I'm not arguing that such cases can't exist, so you aren't really proving anything meaningful there. My point is, to put it clearly: The idea that the right to either free speech or freedom of expression does not guarantee any form of protection from social consequences is completely incorrect. > In this way, standards acceptable to our society can be policed without interferance from the government. That's a cute way of spelling "mob rule". It sounds nice because it talks about avoiding "interference", but really, it's a way of avoiding democracy and due justice. If you can't convince the majority of society, then you take matters into your own hands. That's not a system I want to live in.
    - mlyle 4y ago