4 ms·

When they do one or more of the following: a) call/protest for firing people for said outside-of-work activities b) protest/lobby for legislation changes rest

When they do one or more of the following: a) call/protest for firing people for said outside-of-work activities b) protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way c) protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies d) protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities committing said crimes at higher rates)

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
I have question, because some of these would result in 'woke activists' on the right as well as the left. > protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way There are conservative politicians, florida in particular, that have passed legislation banning CRT and gender studies. Is this not a restriction of free speech? Toby Price was fired for reading a popular children's book to children. Was this not a form of censorship? > protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies Does this mean that that discrimination based on race/gender be allowed or not allowed? Should bakers in an open market be permitted to say no to gay wedding cakes? Should banks be able to say no to non-white loan applicants? > protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities committing said crimes at higher rates) Does uneven enforcement count as a factor? White suburban teens smoke pot (in states where its still illegal) at rates the same as non-white urban teens, but enforcement is highly disprortionate. So what's the solution to that?
- trention 4y ago
  CRT and gender studies should not be part of the high school curriculum in public schools and should not receive any sort of government funding in universities because at best they are pseudoscience. Private institutions not receiving government funding should teach whatever they like, including white nationalism. Discrimination based on race should either be allowed in all circumstances or disallowed in all circumstances. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race so it's hypocritical to have this as government policy while explicitly prohibiting discrimination against minorities. Uneven enforcement calls for punishing those not enforced against, not letting guilty minorities walk. Any further attempts of sealioning will be ignored.
  - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
    so "restricting freedom of speech in any way" really means it can be restricted in some cases. This was your definition, not mine. Again interesting that you consider discrimination based on race in all cases as an acceptable position equal to no discrimination based on race. The unequal enforcement bit would mean that white neighborhoods should be given the same level of enforcement as minority ones. Is that really what you want? Where literally everyone is treated by the police exactly how they treat minorities?
    - trention 4y ago
      I consider "restrictions of freedom of speech" justified only in the context of employment, during work hours, where said restriction directly influences your working output. If public school teachers want to teach woke pseudoscience on their own premises, during their off hours, using their own money, that's OK. I have absolutely no problem with increasing policing in white neighborhoods. The risk to people who are not criminal lowlifes is not zero, but is negligible. And I place 0 weight on the lives and well-being of criminal lowlifes.
      - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
        So, "restricting freedom of speech in any way" is actually "restricting freedom of speech in any way unless during working hours and influences working output". This revised definition now supports the use of DEI in the OP article. I will take your word that you'd be happy with increased policing even if it affected you personally, but I doubt that if you actually experienced it that you would be happy with the outcome.
        trention 4y ago
        It's actually not consistent (and the example is compelled speech not restricting speech). But then again, I shouldn't be breaking what I said earlier about responding to sealioning.
  - scaramanga 4y ago

Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago

I have question, because some of these would result in 'woke activists' on the right as well as the left. > protest/lobby for legislation changes restricting freedom of speech in any way There are conservative politicians, florida in particular, that have passed legislation banning CRT and gender studies. Is this not a restriction of free speech? Toby Price was fired for reading a popular children's book to children. Was this not a form of censorship? > protest/lobby for any sort of affirmative action policies Does this mean that that discrimination based on race/gender be allowed or not allowed? Should bakers in an open market be permitted to say no to gay wedding cakes? Should banks be able to say no to non-white loan applicants? > protest/lobby against enforcing criminal laws because they disproportionally affect minorities (when said disproportionate effect is a result of minorities committing said crimes at higher rates) Does uneven enforcement count as a factor? White suburban teens smoke pot (in states where its still illegal) at rates the same as non-white urban teens, but enforcement is highly disprortionate. So what's the solution to that?

trention 4y ago
CRT and gender studies should not be part of the high school curriculum in public schools and should not receive any sort of government funding in universities because at best they are pseudoscience. Private institutions not receiving government funding should teach whatever they like, including white nationalism. Discrimination based on race should either be allowed in all circumstances or disallowed in all circumstances. Affirmative action is discrimination based on race so it's hypocritical to have this as government policy while explicitly prohibiting discrimination against minorities. Uneven enforcement calls for punishing those not enforced against, not letting guilty minorities walk. Any further attempts of sealioning will be ignored.
- Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
  so "restricting freedom of speech in any way" really means it can be restricted in some cases. This was your definition, not mine. Again interesting that you consider discrimination based on race in all cases as an acceptable position equal to no discrimination based on race. The unequal enforcement bit would mean that white neighborhoods should be given the same level of enforcement as minority ones. Is that really what you want? Where literally everyone is treated by the police exactly how they treat minorities?
  - trention 4y ago
    I consider "restrictions of freedom of speech" justified only in the context of employment, during work hours, where said restriction directly influences your working output. If public school teachers want to teach woke pseudoscience on their own premises, during their off hours, using their own money, that's OK. I have absolutely no problem with increasing policing in white neighborhoods. The risk to people who are not criminal lowlifes is not zero, but is negligible. And I place 0 weight on the lives and well-being of criminal lowlifes.
    - Eddy_Viscosity2 4y ago
      So, "restricting freedom of speech in any way" is actually "restricting freedom of speech in any way unless during working hours and influences working output". This revised definition now supports the use of DEI in the OP article. I will take your word that you'd be happy with increased policing even if it affected you personally, but I doubt that if you actually experienced it that you would be happy with the outcome.
      - trention 4y ago
        It's actually not consistent (and the example is compelled speech not restricting speech). But then again, I shouldn't be breaking what I said earlier about responding to sealioning.
- scaramanga 4y ago