4 ms·

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

by 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
  > "I don't discriminate between people based on their viewpoints so you shouldn't discriminate against me for mine." It's strange you put quotes around that -- but that's not a quote from my comment. And I didn't say it at all. All I said was that I believe in "freedom on expression" and so I don't behave punitively toward people that hold different opinions. You chose to do what you want. > 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. I wish you could see how awful this sounds to someone who doesn't believe themselves to be "moral beyond reproach" -- which you seem to. The hard line in both parties (in the US) today take such a "you agree with us or you are an evil person" approach to policy that the foundations of society feel like they are on more tenuous ground than I ever remember them being. I hope it is just a phase. I fear for our future.
  - ToucanLoucan 3y ago
    > All I said was that I believe in "freedom on expression" and so I don't behave punitively toward people that hold different opinions. You chose to do what you want. Difference without distinction. Everyone believes how they behave is the standard by which most people should behave, that's just human nature. You don't need to explicitly say "I don't think you should discriminate against me for mine" for it to be strongly implied in your sentiment. If you didn't think it was the optimum way to behave, you wouldn't behave that way, therefore at least some endorsement of that behavior to others is a natural implication of your statement. If indeed you have zero issue with it in other people, then why leave this comment at all? > Like I don't care about the politics of the employees of companies I buy from. ... I feel sad that this is the place the word has come to. If you don't care, truly, then why do you feel sad? > I wish you could see how awful this sounds to someone who doesn't believe themselves to be "moral beyond reproach" -- which you seem to. I guess it's your turn to put words in my mouth then? Except nothing I said follows logically to what you've stated here. I don't believe I'm beyond moral reproach at all, far from it. I'm, in my mind, a reformed libertarian. I still believe many of the things I originally believed, the scales have simply fallen from my eyes with regard to the innate superiority of capitalism and markets. Those things, of course, have a place but I believe they are grossly overstated in our current world and I empathize with the people who suffer from that as a result. > The hard line in both parties (in the US) today take such a "you agree with us or you are an evil person" approach to policy that the foundations of society feel like they are on more tenuous ground than I ever remember them being. I mean, sure. But my thinking of them as evil people (which I don't, more on that later) rests on the fact that their policies are demonstrably harmful, that damn near everything wrong with our current world both in the United States and abroad can be laid at the feet, at least in part, in one way or another of extremely liberal economic policies with regard to trade and, alongside that, a massive movement towards privatization of public good services and the destruction of the welfare state, has left people acutely vulnerable to the sorts of violence and grotesqueness we now suffer under daily. Conversely, their opinion of me being evil rests in heavily propagandized, inaccurate and evil versions of socialism and/or communism (which despite being two different things are used interchangeably, reinforcing the lack of true understanding on their part but I digress) conflated with basic pro-social, pro-worker policies that are not out of place in numerous other developed nations, which up until barely a generation ago had broad support even here in the United States and basically boil down to "maybe people shouldn't be completely subjugated to the wills of their employer who has fundamentally different motivations actually" and "maybe being broke shouldn't be functionally a prison sentence without a release date, or worse, a death penalty." For example: Are you aware that what became the Affordable Care Act (or as the Republicans coined it, "Obamacare") was originally a pilot program established in Massachusetts by Republican Governor at the time Mitt Romney? But of course because a Democrat had suggested it, the fact that it was mostly a Republican idea didn't matter because the Republicans no longer govern with principles, they govern with rage and so we had a whole new round of propaganda that any amount of relief for people who didn't have insurance was communist and was going to destroy the West as we know it and yadda yadda yadda. Like, I understand the across-the-aisle belief system inherently. I believed it, for a long time. But fundamentally as the American Right-wing drifted further and further away from actual conservatism which, while being an ideology I disagree with on most points, has an agenda and has principles it adheres to, I could no longer stand by it because it was so fundamentally opposed to all my own personal ethics with regard to the actual freedom they espouse belief in... while simultaneously advocating for massive government overreach and control to fight all the things in the world they feel inadequate compared to. That was a bit of a tangent on my part, but the point is: I don't view my opposition as evil. Evil is a force of myth, of some unnamed power that holds influence over people. The right even now is not evil, it's an astroturfed movement full of well-meaning, frightened, and heavily, heavily misinformed people backed by an absolutely stressful amount of corporate funding to prop up what is, fundamentally, a broken ideology who's ideas have left vast swathes of the world objectively, measurably worse off. I don't believe they're evil people but I do believe many of their ideas can definitely be categorized as evil, if someone is feeling poetic. I would use more precise language, like socially corrosive, misinformed and a result of coordinated monetary spend from powerful organizations and people trying to shift public policies in directions that allow them to accrue more power and money. And at the very least, I don't think it's unethical in the slightest for me to decide if a local coffee shop has an All Lives Matter sticker in the window, then that's not a shop I would like to spend money at.
JohnFen 3y ago
Choosing not to spend my money with a particular company is not being punitive. It's not me denying people the right to express themselves on any level -- everyone can continue to express themselves as they wish. "Freedom of speech" means people have the right to speak their minds. It doesn't mean everyone has to act as if they didn't hear the speech. Me exercising my right to choose who I will or will not associate with doesn't impact anyone's freedom of speech.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  Also feel the need to drop a note here about the incredibly bad-faith conflation of "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences of speech." The government does not and should not have the right to imprison you for saying shit, even the worst shit I've ever heard. That being said, if saying it loses you your job, your business clients, your friends and family, and whatever else because they now think you're an asshole of an incredible caliber, I have zero issues with that at all. If you find it inconvenient to hold shitty principles, I'd suggest you find better principles, not uselessly get upset with other people who no longer want to put up with you.
moregrist 3y ago
Why is it being punitive to not buy a car? To call it punitive implies that I'm taking something away. It's the opposite: Tesla has to earn my money, and it's failing to do that. Or perhaps more simply: I'm choosing to express myself, just like Elon does. And I choose to express my dislike of Elon's antics by not giving him or his companies money.

by timmg 3y ago

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
> "I don't discriminate between people based on their viewpoints so you shouldn't discriminate against me for mine." It's strange you put quotes around that -- but that's not a quote from my comment. And I didn't say it at all. All I said was that I believe in "freedom on expression" and so I don't behave punitively toward people that hold different opinions. You chose to do what you want. > 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. I wish you could see how awful this sounds to someone who doesn't believe themselves to be "moral beyond reproach" -- which you seem to. The hard line in both parties (in the US) today take such a "you agree with us or you are an evil person" approach to policy that the foundations of society feel like they are on more tenuous ground than I ever remember them being. I hope it is just a phase. I fear for our future.
- ToucanLoucan 3y ago
  > All I said was that I believe in "freedom on expression" and so I don't behave punitively toward people that hold different opinions. You chose to do what you want. Difference without distinction. Everyone believes how they behave is the standard by which most people should behave, that's just human nature. You don't need to explicitly say "I don't think you should discriminate against me for mine" for it to be strongly implied in your sentiment. If you didn't think it was the optimum way to behave, you wouldn't behave that way, therefore at least some endorsement of that behavior to others is a natural implication of your statement. If indeed you have zero issue with it in other people, then why leave this comment at all? > Like I don't care about the politics of the employees of companies I buy from. ... I feel sad that this is the place the word has come to. If you don't care, truly, then why do you feel sad? > I wish you could see how awful this sounds to someone who doesn't believe themselves to be "moral beyond reproach" -- which you seem to. I guess it's your turn to put words in my mouth then? Except nothing I said follows logically to what you've stated here. I don't believe I'm beyond moral reproach at all, far from it. I'm, in my mind, a reformed libertarian. I still believe many of the things I originally believed, the scales have simply fallen from my eyes with regard to the innate superiority of capitalism and markets. Those things, of course, have a place but I believe they are grossly overstated in our current world and I empathize with the people who suffer from that as a result. > The hard line in both parties (in the US) today take such a "you agree with us or you are an evil person" approach to policy that the foundations of society feel like they are on more tenuous ground than I ever remember them being. I mean, sure. But my thinking of them as evil people (which I don't, more on that later) rests on the fact that their policies are demonstrably harmful, that damn near everything wrong with our current world both in the United States and abroad can be laid at the feet, at least in part, in one way or another of extremely liberal economic policies with regard to trade and, alongside that, a massive movement towards privatization of public good services and the destruction of the welfare state, has left people acutely vulnerable to the sorts of violence and grotesqueness we now suffer under daily. Conversely, their opinion of me being evil rests in heavily propagandized, inaccurate and evil versions of socialism and/or communism (which despite being two different things are used interchangeably, reinforcing the lack of true understanding on their part but I digress) conflated with basic pro-social, pro-worker policies that are not out of place in numerous other developed nations, which up until barely a generation ago had broad support even here in the United States and basically boil down to "maybe people shouldn't be completely subjugated to the wills of their employer who has fundamentally different motivations actually" and "maybe being broke shouldn't be functionally a prison sentence without a release date, or worse, a death penalty." For example: Are you aware that what became the Affordable Care Act (or as the Republicans coined it, "Obamacare") was originally a pilot program established in Massachusetts by Republican Governor at the time Mitt Romney? But of course because a Democrat had suggested it, the fact that it was mostly a Republican idea didn't matter because the Republicans no longer govern with principles, they govern with rage and so we had a whole new round of propaganda that any amount of relief for people who didn't have insurance was communist and was going to destroy the West as we know it and yadda yadda yadda. Like, I understand the across-the-aisle belief system inherently. I believed it, for a long time. But fundamentally as the American Right-wing drifted further and further away from actual conservatism which, while being an ideology I disagree with on most points, has an agenda and has principles it adheres to, I could no longer stand by it because it was so fundamentally opposed to all my own personal ethics with regard to the actual freedom they espouse belief in... while simultaneously advocating for massive government overreach and control to fight all the things in the world they feel inadequate compared to. That was a bit of a tangent on my part, but the point is: I don't view my opposition as evil. Evil is a force of myth, of some unnamed power that holds influence over people. The right even now is not evil, it's an astroturfed movement full of well-meaning, frightened, and heavily, heavily misinformed people backed by an absolutely stressful amount of corporate funding to prop up what is, fundamentally, a broken ideology who's ideas have left vast swathes of the world objectively, measurably worse off. I don't believe they're evil people but I do believe many of their ideas can definitely be categorized as evil, if someone is feeling poetic. I would use more precise language, like socially corrosive, misinformed and a result of coordinated monetary spend from powerful organizations and people trying to shift public policies in directions that allow them to accrue more power and money. And at the very least, I don't think it's unethical in the slightest for me to decide if a local coffee shop has an All Lives Matter sticker in the window, then that's not a shop I would like to spend money at.

JohnFen 3y ago

Choosing not to spend my money with a particular company is not being punitive. It's not me denying people the right to express themselves on any level -- everyone can continue to express themselves as they wish. "Freedom of speech" means people have the right to speak their minds. It doesn't mean everyone has to act as if they didn't hear the speech. Me exercising my right to choose who I will or will not associate with doesn't impact anyone's freedom of speech.

ToucanLoucan 3y ago
Also feel the need to drop a note here about the incredibly bad-faith conflation of "freedom of speech" with "freedom from consequences of speech." The government does not and should not have the right to imprison you for saying shit, even the worst shit I've ever heard. That being said, if saying it loses you your job, your business clients, your friends and family, and whatever else because they now think you're an asshole of an incredible caliber, I have zero issues with that at all. If you find it inconvenient to hold shitty principles, I'd suggest you find better principles, not uselessly get upset with other people who no longer want to put up with you.

moregrist 3y ago

Why is it being punitive to not buy a car? To call it punitive implies that I'm taking something away. It's the opposite: Tesla has to earn my money, and it's failing to do that. Or perhaps more simply: I'm choosing to express myself, just like Elon does. And I choose to express my dislike of Elon's antics by not giving him or his companies money.