13 ms·

> How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? Looks like that does happen. No? Or just pushing university administrations to cancel speake

by mantas 3y ago

> How are they preventing it? Physically holding the doors closed? Looks like that does happen. No? Or just pushing university administrations to cancel speakers they just approved. > But people want only the positive results of broadcasting their political views and none of the negative. <...> But then why should that person be completely sheltered from any negative consequences of trying to affect that change. In a democracy, people decide on political views by voting. As long as people keep their views to themselves and don't harass coworkers, why would we care what views they hold? Unless the person in question starts calling for physical abuse etc. But then it's a police matter, not lynching crowds. That specific case is very wrong in many cases. Dude basically caved in and got out of politics. Yet his political enemies carried on. What's the lesson? If you ever say something contraversial, the only way is to double-down, because you'll be hunted forever? Is voicing a contraversial opinion in one's youth worse than doing heavy crimes? Since ex-prisoners re-integration is quite a big thing. I don't understand the point. Make people scared to step out of line? Create whole underclass of people who have nothing to loose for the rest of their lives? Both options are straight out of USSR playbook. > The fact is that social pressure is generally what keeps us from falling into barbarism. Can it be abused? Sure. Anything can be abused. Even what you're suggesting can and is being abused. Today's social pressure is used for barbarism. And it's so twisted that it's not only not stopping good thing, but even pushing wrong things. E.g. we had LGBT protest. Some people held a counter-protest. Then one famous LGBT dude went to counter-protesters, forced himself onto one of the main counter-protesters and kissed him. Sexual assault in public right there. Yet many shitheads went on to proclaim how cool this is. And LGBT dude didn't get into any legal problems. Wonder what would happen if a counter-protester would do the same to some girl on the other side. Somehow I really doubt the consequences would be the same :) Sort of like black vs White capitalisation BS.

wvenable 3y ago
People act on their political views by voting -- the decided on political views through what they hear and read. We agree that as long as people keep their views to themselves we don't care what views they hold. And we obviously agree that harassment is bad, lynching is bad, sexual harassment is bad. These continued straw men don't really add anything here. > E.g. we had LGBT protest. In the same city where you were? Did you personally see this protest? What do the LGBT protesters want? And there were counter-protesters? What do the counter-protesters want? Anyway, you've provided all these weird small examples but I don't really get the point. If you feel personally aggrieved by how society reacts to your views, I'm sorry too bad. Society is free to react negatively or positively! Complaining that people who really don't like terrible ideas should keep that to themselves isn't very convincing to me. If you take all the harassment away, which with both agree is bad, then it's just two groups of people expressing their opinions. If university administrators are convinced to change their minds because of protests then that just means the protest worked. We both agree that protests are good and protests exist to achieve a goal. Not all protests are good and not all goals are good for society but that doesn't matter.
- mantas 3y ago
  > People act on their political views by voting -- the decided on political views through what they hear and read. We agree that as long as people keep their views to themselves we don't care what views they hold. And we obviously agree that harassment is bad, lynching is bad, sexual harassment is bad. These continued straw men don't really add anything here. Running for an office with political views is part of acting on their political views. If you keep your political views to yourself at workplace, but you run for an office with them... Should your coworkers care or not? Or are you allowed to have any political views as long as you don't participate in the democratical process? :) > What do the LGBT protesters want? And there were counter-protesters? What do the counter-protesters want? I'm not sure if exact topics change wether sexual assault is fine or not. But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you. > Complaining that people who really don't like terrible ideas should keep that to themselves isn't very convincing to me. Political ideas should be discussed at political level. Debates, elections and so on. Not all-out war where stepping out of line may ruin one's life. Especially with today's highly polarized political climate where „terrible ideas“ label is attached very easily. > If you take all the harassment away, which with both agree is bad, then it's just two groups of people expressing their opinions. If university administrators are convinced to change their minds because of protests then that just means the protest worked. IMO it's closer to mob rule forcing employers or university administration act in one way or another. In any case, if the opinions are not illegal (= promoting violence etc), refusing employment or forbidding on-campus speech for such opinions feels a wee authoritarian. There's a very very fine line between employers/universities rights and society forcing dominant narrative and sanitising public discourse. Would you like to be fired if some idea you hold would be seen as „terrible“ by your employer (or a mob forces them to act so)? Given how what is acceptable changed in the past decade or two, who knows how it will change in next few decades.
  - wvenable 3y ago
    > Should your coworkers care or not? Or are you allowed to have any political views as long as you don't participate in the democratical process? :) If think your political views involve taking the rights away from your coworkers or even causing them to feel unsafe I think they have the right to care? If I'm your coworker and I want to take away your rights, I think you'd want to care about that right? You're not just going to sit on you ass like a chump and do nothing. > But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you. Why would someone be against same sex civic partnership? If you're not homosexual, it doesn't impact you at all. > Especially with today's highly polarized political climate where „terrible ideas“ label is attached very easily. And yet terrible ideas seem more common these days than ever. > IMO it's closer to mob rule forcing employers or university administration act in one way or another. What's the difference between a peaceful mob and a protest? People getting together to affect change is a "mob" if you don't like why they're saying and a "protest" if you do. > refusing employment or forbidding on-campus speech for such opinions feels a wee authoritarian. Sure, and you know what is also authoritarian? Authoritarians sharing authoritarian ideas, convincing others, and implementing. If you're tolerant of intolerance than you up with nothing but intolerance and you achieve authoritarianism that way. It's not like there's no historical precedent for this. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" > There's a very very fine line between employers/universities rights and society forcing dominant narrative and sanitising public discourse. Yes there is a fine line. I'm accepting of that fine line but you want to just eliminate it. It's not that you for for free speech rights, it's just that you want one group to have them and another group to be restricted from having them. You accept that speech is important but you don't grasp why -- because it's meant to accomplish something. Speech is powerful, useful, and even dangerous. > Would you like to be fired if some idea you hold would be seen as „terrible“ by your employer (or a mob forces them to act so)? I'm willing to accept that. I believe my own political ideas are open and accepting enough that my coworkers and employers wouldn't care. And if they did care, then I wouldn't want to be employed by them. > Given how what is acceptable changed in the past decade or two, who knows how it will change in next few decades. The only constant in life is change.

by mantas 3y ago

wvenable 3y ago

People act on their political views by voting -- the decided on political views through what they hear and read. We agree that as long as people keep their views to themselves we don't care what views they hold. And we obviously agree that harassment is bad, lynching is bad, sexual harassment is bad. These continued straw men don't really add anything here. > E.g. we had LGBT protest. In the same city where you were? Did you personally see this protest? What do the LGBT protesters want? And there were counter-protesters? What do the counter-protesters want? Anyway, you've provided all these weird small examples but I don't really get the point. If you feel personally aggrieved by how society reacts to your views, I'm sorry too bad. Society is free to react negatively or positively! Complaining that people who really don't like terrible ideas should keep that to themselves isn't very convincing to me. If you take all the harassment away, which with both agree is bad, then it's just two groups of people expressing their opinions. If university administrators are convinced to change their minds because of protests then that just means the protest worked. We both agree that protests are good and protests exist to achieve a goal. Not all protests are good and not all goals are good for society but that doesn't matter.

mantas 3y ago
> People act on their political views by voting -- the decided on political views through what they hear and read. We agree that as long as people keep their views to themselves we don't care what views they hold. And we obviously agree that harassment is bad, lynching is bad, sexual harassment is bad. These continued straw men don't really add anything here. Running for an office with political views is part of acting on their political views. If you keep your political views to yourself at workplace, but you run for an office with them... Should your coworkers care or not? Or are you allowed to have any political views as long as you don't participate in the democratical process? :) > What do the LGBT protesters want? And there were counter-protesters? What do the counter-protesters want? I'm not sure if exact topics change wether sexual assault is fine or not. But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you. > Complaining that people who really don't like terrible ideas should keep that to themselves isn't very convincing to me. Political ideas should be discussed at political level. Debates, elections and so on. Not all-out war where stepping out of line may ruin one's life. Especially with today's highly polarized political climate where „terrible ideas“ label is attached very easily. > If you take all the harassment away, which with both agree is bad, then it's just two groups of people expressing their opinions. If university administrators are convinced to change their minds because of protests then that just means the protest worked. IMO it's closer to mob rule forcing employers or university administration act in one way or another. In any case, if the opinions are not illegal (= promoting violence etc), refusing employment or forbidding on-campus speech for such opinions feels a wee authoritarian. There's a very very fine line between employers/universities rights and society forcing dominant narrative and sanitising public discourse. Would you like to be fired if some idea you hold would be seen as „terrible“ by your employer (or a mob forces them to act so)? Given how what is acceptable changed in the past decade or two, who knows how it will change in next few decades.
- wvenable 3y ago
  > Should your coworkers care or not? Or are you allowed to have any political views as long as you don't participate in the democratical process? :) If think your political views involve taking the rights away from your coworkers or even causing them to feel unsafe I think they have the right to care? If I'm your coworker and I want to take away your rights, I think you'd want to care about that right? You're not just going to sit on you ass like a chump and do nothing. > But it was pro and against same sex civic partnership if it makes any difference for you. Why would someone be against same sex civic partnership? If you're not homosexual, it doesn't impact you at all. > Especially with today's highly polarized political climate where „terrible ideas“ label is attached very easily. And yet terrible ideas seem more common these days than ever. > IMO it's closer to mob rule forcing employers or university administration act in one way or another. What's the difference between a peaceful mob and a protest? People getting together to affect change is a "mob" if you don't like why they're saying and a "protest" if you do. > refusing employment or forbidding on-campus speech for such opinions feels a wee authoritarian. Sure, and you know what is also authoritarian? Authoritarians sharing authoritarian ideas, convincing others, and implementing. If you're tolerant of intolerance than you up with nothing but intolerance and you achieve authoritarianism that way. It's not like there's no historical precedent for this. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" > There's a very very fine line between employers/universities rights and society forcing dominant narrative and sanitising public discourse. Yes there is a fine line. I'm accepting of that fine line but you want to just eliminate it. It's not that you for for free speech rights, it's just that you want one group to have them and another group to be restricted from having them. You accept that speech is important but you don't grasp why -- because it's meant to accomplish something. Speech is powerful, useful, and even dangerous. > Would you like to be fired if some idea you hold would be seen as „terrible“ by your employer (or a mob forces them to act so)? I'm willing to accept that. I believe my own political ideas are open and accepting enough that my coworkers and employers wouldn't care. And if they did care, then I wouldn't want to be employed by them. > Given how what is acceptable changed in the past decade or two, who knows how it will change in next few decades. The only constant in life is change.