4 ms·

> 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 vi

by 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.
- mantas 3y ago
  > > 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. So it's fine to sexually assault a protester if you don't get why protester may hold such opinion? > 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. Are you saying „you“ as in me? Or talking about hypothetical „you“? If this is former, I'm for free speech. But those who want to use their „free speech“ to prevent other from speaking are not exercising „free speech“. If people would use such „free speech“ to prevent people from your political side, would you still look at it the same way? Or does different standards apply here, because you believe your ideas are so open and accepting nobody could do that? > 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" So it's authoritarianism one way or another. Nice and accepting political ideas right there...

by mantas 3y ago

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.

mantas 3y ago
> > 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. So it's fine to sexually assault a protester if you don't get why protester may hold such opinion? > 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. Are you saying „you“ as in me? Or talking about hypothetical „you“? If this is former, I'm for free speech. But those who want to use their „free speech“ to prevent other from speaking are not exercising „free speech“. If people would use such „free speech“ to prevent people from your political side, would you still look at it the same way? Or does different standards apply here, because you believe your ideas are so open and accepting nobody could do that? > 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" So it's authoritarianism one way or another. Nice and accepting political ideas right there...