4 ms·

I don't need the top-to-bottom employee structure of an entire org to be 100% with me on all political or social issues. That's unreasonable. All I really ask f

I don't need the top-to-bottom employee structure of an entire org to be 100% with me on all political or social issues. That's unreasonable. All I really ask for is enough plausible deniability that I'm not directly funding people who would seek to have my friends harmed in the name of their social projects. Unfortunately this is getting harder and harder to manage as everyone is now their own brand manager and feels the need to publicly and financially support their preferred political party, politician, or organization. You can feel however you want about it. Everyone has a line to draw in their own plot of sand with regard to what they're willing to tolerate and what they're not on this axis. That said if, for example, you don't believe women have the right to their bodies, that people don't have the right to express themselves, those sort of baseline "human" things, then you can very reliably count me out on supporting anything you make if I can possibly avoid it.

timmg 3y ago
> that people don't have the right to express themselves Actually, that's exactly what I do believe. That was the gist of my comment.
- JohnFen 3y ago
  It was? I don't think I understood your comment, then.
  - timmg 3y ago
    What do you think it means that "people should be allowed to express themselves"?
    - JohnFen 3y ago
      Perhaps we're talking about different comments here. I thought I was responding to this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055668
      - timmg 3y ago
        Yes. My point is that I don’t believe in being punitive toward people for expressing opinions different than mine. My original comment follows pretty logically from that belief. Which is why I asked you what you thought it meant to say, “people should be allowed to express themselves”.
        ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        > My point is that I don’t believe in being punitive toward people for expressing opinions different than mine. I mean, it depends on the opinion. If we're talking differences in the number and spacing of tax brackets or whether or not the Government should fund beautification projects for the highway system and not just rote maintenance, yeah. I wouldn't say you should be punished for expressing those opinions. If on the other hand you think certain groups of people shouldn't be allowed to exist with their full set of rights or in some other way, demonstrably less equal than others, well, that's not really a difference of opinion I'm prepared to entertain. You're wrong. I can't change your mind but I find your viewpoint corrosive and you yourself as a person less appealing, and so I'm disinclined to do business with you. This is a bizarre kind of entitlement to be honest. "I don't discriminate between people based on their viewpoints so you shouldn't discriminate against me for mine." But like... that's not an understood level playing field. Again, the context is crucial. What is our difference of opinion? It's easy enough to play status quo warrior when the status quo doesn't harm you, but that's an entirely different world for the person it does. And like, even if it's a low stakes issue to you, like for example, the planning and maintenance of a sewer line, if your hypothetical opposite person is someone who lives near where that sewage line is currently flooding the back of their property with dangerous grey water, they're going to have a MUCH stronger opinion on the maintenance of sewer lines than you, and if you say something like "this really doesn't warrant this kind of aggression" they're probably going to punch you in the face because you're minimizing an active threat to their home because it doesn't directly affect you. And to be clear, that would be wrong of them to do, but I also would understand why that aggression would come out. If someone else has a problem that's benign and forgettable to you because you don't deal with it every day, if you're sitting in front of them telling them it doesn't matter and they're being ridiculous for getting so upset, well, I think them not wanting to patronize your business is pretty reasonable.

timmg 3y ago

> that people don't have the right to express themselves Actually, that's exactly what I do believe. That was the gist of my comment.

JohnFen 3y ago
It was? I don't think I understood your comment, then.
- timmg 3y ago
  What do you think it means that "people should be allowed to express themselves"?
  - JohnFen 3y ago
    Perhaps we're talking about different comments here. I thought I was responding to this one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055668 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40055668
    - timmg 3y ago
      Yes. My point is that I don’t believe in being punitive toward people for expressing opinions different than mine. My original comment follows pretty logically from that belief. Which is why I asked you what you thought it meant to say, “people should be allowed to express themselves”.
      - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
        > My point is that I don’t believe in being punitive toward people for expressing opinions different than mine. I mean, it depends on the opinion. If we're talking differences in the number and spacing of tax brackets or whether or not the Government should fund beautification projects for the highway system and not just rote maintenance, yeah. I wouldn't say you should be punished for expressing those opinions. If on the other hand you think certain groups of people shouldn't be allowed to exist with their full set of rights or in some other way, demonstrably less equal than others, well, that's not really a difference of opinion I'm prepared to entertain. You're wrong. I can't change your mind but I find your viewpoint corrosive and you yourself as a person less appealing, and so I'm disinclined to do business with you. This is a bizarre kind of entitlement to be honest. "I don't discriminate between people based on their viewpoints so you shouldn't discriminate against me for mine." But like... that's not an understood level playing field. Again, the context is crucial. What is our difference of opinion? It's easy enough to play status quo warrior when the status quo doesn't harm you, but that's an entirely different world for the person it does. And like, even if it's a low stakes issue to you, like for example, the planning and maintenance of a sewer line, if your hypothetical opposite person is someone who lives near where that sewage line is currently flooding the back of their property with dangerous grey water, they're going to have a MUCH stronger opinion on the maintenance of sewer lines than you, and if you say something like "this really doesn't warrant this kind of aggression" they're probably going to punch you in the face because you're minimizing an active threat to their home because it doesn't directly affect you. And to be clear, that would be wrong of them to do, but I also would understand why that aggression would come out. If someone else has a problem that's benign and forgettable to you because you don't deal with it every day, if you're sitting in front of them telling them it doesn't matter and they're being ridiculous for getting so upset, well, I think them not wanting to patronize your business is pretty reasonable.