3 ms·

> 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 expressi

> 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
    > 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. I think people are saying that: - The university should repudiate their assertions with the university's words. - The university should strongly seek to enforce its rules when there are harsher actions than a walkout, such as the vandalism coordinated by group chats. > 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. If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy". I mean, you seem to be arguing that the government should somehow force (someone?) to give the super racist person a job so they're not "cancelled."
    - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
      > If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy". If you put in active effort to lobby businesses (I mainly care about larger businesses like google & al. here) to not employ people of certain opinions, then that's definitely punitive action rather than personal consequence. And as I said: specifically punishing people for holding certain opinions, whether it is done through the state or not, is antithetical to freedom of opinion and expression.
      - mlyle 4y ago
        Conversely, having lots of super-racist-dudes in positions of power is antithetical to economic freedoms of the groups they're biased against. Paradox of tolerance, et al.

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
  > 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. I think people are saying that: - The university should repudiate their assertions with the university's words. - The university should strongly seek to enforce its rules when there are harsher actions than a walkout, such as the vandalism coordinated by group chats. > 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. If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy". I mean, you seem to be arguing that the government should somehow force (someone?) to give the super racist person a job so they're not "cancelled."
  - DarkWiiPlayer 4y ago
    > If you convince everyone who would give someone a job that it's not worth the hassle to hire the super racist dude, that's hardly "avoiding democracy". If you put in active effort to lobby businesses (I mainly care about larger businesses like google & al. here) to not employ people of certain opinions, then that's definitely punitive action rather than personal consequence. And as I said: specifically punishing people for holding certain opinions, whether it is done through the state or not, is antithetical to freedom of opinion and expression.
    - mlyle 4y ago
      Conversely, having lots of super-racist-dudes in positions of power is antithetical to economic freedoms of the groups they're biased against. Paradox of tolerance, et al.