10 ms·

Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandw

Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.

rayiner 14y ago
I'm curious why you talk about it like its a good thing. Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change. As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that in my purchasing decisions.
- nacker 14y ago
  "incorrect social views" ? Please let me know where to find the official canon of "correct social views", as I am anxious not to end up in the Gulag accidentally.
- lkbm 14y ago
  Political advertising would also work. I'm opposed to dragging the vitriolic "I refuse to work with you because you're a Publican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/bleeding-heart/homophobe' behavior into a wider arena of life. I'm friends with and work with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. and that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a world where our political differences mean we can't function as a society. I can't get my haircut there--he's racist or sexist or homophobic. No, he's a normally-okay dude who cuts my hair well. I don't know how to best express this. Jon Stewart kind of talked about it at the Rally for Sanity when he mentioned how we don't cut people off for having a McCain bumper sticker. Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
    - mortenjorck 14y ago
      It would be nice if it were that Godwinningly simple. You don't have to commit genocide to be racist, you don't have to commit rape to be sexist, you don't have to engage in oppression to be homophobic. People are complicated. No one is perfect. Everyone has good and bad qualities.
  - alecdibble 14y ago
    > Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs. Are they really decent if they were racist/sexist/homophobic? Just because people were nice to others that didn't fit into their hatepool, I do not feel that makes them generally "decent". No matter what time period you look at, there were people that didn't agree with these "social norms". I would call the such occurrences "decent people". I understand your message about party differences/etc. but I feel there is a line that can get crossed between differing perspectives and hateful behavior. The latter should not be tolerated, in my opinion.
- slurgfest 14y ago
  I'm curious about the method by which one determines when a social view is "incorrect." Take a survey? What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state? I guess I am "incorrect" for not supporting state-recognized gay marriage. But how was I supposed to determine this before you came along to tell me?
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Were bans on interracial marriage incorrect? Was slavery incorrect? I'm not saying bans on gay marriage are as bad as slavery, obviously, but rather that there are certain issues which over the course of history will become generally accepted social truth. That is, of course, the only sort of "correctness" that is possible on a social issue. Marriage, in the legal sense, just a particular type of contract, long recognized because of how commonly people wanted to enter into a particular type of economic arrangement. It is non-sensical to think religious institutions should have any say in defining this type of contract, any more than they have a say in defining the contracts that pertain to, say, residential leases. Should religious institutions be able to use Biblical scripture to argue that implied in any residential lease is a warranty that the landlord will have running water, etc? Of course not, that is the exclusive domain of the secular courts. The marriage contract, being no different, should be treated no differently.
    - chernevik 14y ago
      I'm not sure how your first paragraph differs from saying that some social consensus, at some point in time, constitutes ethics, for no other reason than that consensus.
  - phillmv 14y ago
    >how was I supposed to determine this before you came along to tell me? You hear other people's opinions and you make up your mind. It's painfully obvious that there isn't an objective repository for this sort of thing; the whole notion of 'inalienable rights" is rather recent and fluffy to begin with. >What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state? Yet we live in a society where marriage is legally defined. It's fine to work against abolishing the institution of marriage, but if that's the case witholding that legal definition from an arbitrary segment of the population becomes a petty argument over semantics.
- phillmv 14y ago
  >Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change. Thank you. This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.
  - learc83 14y ago
    >lolbertarians That was stupid, this isn't reddit. libertarians do believe that market pressure should be used instead of government coercion. You'll definitely find plenty of them who do support a boycott of chick-fil-a. At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      > At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own. There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation. The CEO of Chick-fil-A is like 90. If he was just homophobic, sexist, etc, in private, it wouldn't make news anywhere.
      - learc83 14y ago
        >There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation. I respect anyone's choice to do so. However, for me personally I see trying to convince other people to share your opinion as just an extension of having an opinion in the first place. I wouldn't vote for a law to ban gay marriage, but I'd still patronize a business who's owner did. Unless that owner was doing something more than peacefully trying to coerce people to vote for said law.
        14y ago
- chernevik 14y ago
  One of the strongest arguments for free speech is the practical impossibility of knowing which views are and aren't correct. Another is the fact that pretty much every apparatus ever erected for the enforcement of "correct views" has ultimately been corrupted and abused.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - rayiner 14y ago
    Free speech entitles you to speak your mind. It doesn't entitle you to be free from dislike and rebuke for the things you say.
    - chernevik 14y ago
      Who says it does? But I myself won't dislike and rebuke people simply for disagreeing with me.
      - rayiner 14y ago
        It's ridiculous to call "spending millions funding bigotry" as a matter of simple "disagreement."
        chernevik 14y ago
        So your respect for someone's right to a differing opinion stops at the point you regard them as "bigoted." And any third party disagreeing with you about that person's right to their opinion, they're wrong too. What could possibly go wrong?
- danielweber 14y ago
  What if you have the incorrect social views, as determined by the society at large? Let's say you were in 1880's Deep South and thought black should vote. Do you think there's no problem if people in town refuse to sell you goods for that? Is a Hollywood blacklist just something to shrug off. Obviously you should not be forced, as an individual, to purchase goods or services from someone else you don't like. Going any further than that and society can strangle minority viewpoints almost as oppressively as government. If I refuse to deal with you, or anyone who deals with you, or anyone who deals with anyone who deals with you, than we move away from a pluralistic society towards one where the group most in charge at a given moment wins.

Excellent. I can now express my view of heartily not giving a damn about my vendors' political opinions by reading a book bought at Amazon while eating a sandwich bought at Chik-Fil-A.

rayiner 14y ago

I'm curious why you talk about it like its a good thing. Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change. As a consumer buying a product, there are lots of things I value besides just the product I'm getting. I care about service, etc. Not being terrible people is also something I value, and I don't see anything wrong with reflecting that in my purchasing decisions.

nacker 14y ago
"incorrect social views" ? Please let me know where to find the official canon of "correct social views", as I am anxious not to end up in the Gulag accidentally.
lkbm 14y ago
Political advertising would also work. I'm opposed to dragging the vitriolic "I refuse to work with you because you're a Publican/Democrat/conservative/liberal/bleeding-heart/homophobe' behavior into a wider arena of life. I'm friends with and work with Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, etc. and that's a GOOD thing. I don't want a world where our political differences mean we can't function as a society. I can't get my haircut there--he's racist or sexist or homophobic. No, he's a normally-okay dude who cuts my hair well. I don't know how to best express this. Jon Stewart kind of talked about it at the Rally for Sanity when he mentioned how we don't cut people off for having a McCain bumper sticker. Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
  - mortenjorck 14y ago
    It would be nice if it were that Godwinningly simple. You don't have to commit genocide to be racist, you don't have to commit rape to be sexist, you don't have to engage in oppression to be homophobic. People are complicated. No one is perfect. Everyone has good and bad qualities.
- alecdibble 14y ago
  > Step one is to realize that being homophobic doesn't make you "terrible people". Three hundred years ago pretty much everyone was racist, sexist, and homophobic, but were in general as decent people as we are today; they just had some terrible beliefs, and terrible behaviors that came along with those beliefs. Are they really decent if they were racist/sexist/homophobic? Just because people were nice to others that didn't fit into their hatepool, I do not feel that makes them generally "decent". No matter what time period you look at, there were people that didn't agree with these "social norms". I would call the such occurrences "decent people". I understand your message about party differences/etc. but I feel there is a line that can get crossed between differing perspectives and hateful behavior. The latter should not be tolerated, in my opinion.
slurgfest 14y ago
I'm curious about the method by which one determines when a social view is "incorrect." Take a survey? What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state? I guess I am "incorrect" for not supporting state-recognized gay marriage. But how was I supposed to determine this before you came along to tell me?
- rayiner 14y ago
  Were bans on interracial marriage incorrect? Was slavery incorrect? I'm not saying bans on gay marriage are as bad as slavery, obviously, but rather that there are certain issues which over the course of history will become generally accepted social truth. That is, of course, the only sort of "correctness" that is possible on a social issue. Marriage, in the legal sense, just a particular type of contract, long recognized because of how commonly people wanted to enter into a particular type of economic arrangement. It is non-sensical to think religious institutions should have any say in defining this type of contract, any more than they have a say in defining the contracts that pertain to, say, residential leases. Should religious institutions be able to use Biblical scripture to argue that implied in any residential lease is a warranty that the landlord will have running water, etc? Of course not, that is the exclusive domain of the secular courts. The marriage contract, being no different, should be treated no differently.
  - chernevik 14y ago
    I'm not sure how your first paragraph differs from saying that some social consensus, at some point in time, constitutes ethics, for no other reason than that consensus.
- phillmv 14y ago
  >how was I supposed to determine this before you came along to tell me? You hear other people's opinions and you make up your mind. It's painfully obvious that there isn't an objective repository for this sort of thing; the whole notion of 'inalienable rights" is rather recent and fluffy to begin with. >What if I think that marriage should be defined religiously by a religious institution rather than legally by the state? Yet we live in a society where marriage is legally defined. It's fine to work against abolishing the institution of marriage, but if that's the case witholding that legal definition from an arbitrary segment of the population becomes a petty argument over semantics.
phillmv 14y ago
>Market pressure to get rid of incorrect social views is the only alternative to legislative action to force such change. Thank you. This is why it infuriates me when you see lolbertarians going about how you shouldn't care. Of all people they should be the ones to recognize why this sort of stuff… matters.
- learc83 14y ago
  >lolbertarians That was stupid, this isn't reddit. libertarians do believe that market pressure should be used instead of government coercion. You'll definitely find plenty of them who do support a boycott of chick-fil-a. At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own.
  - rayiner 14y ago
    > At the same time there are other libertarians who don't support a boycott because they believe that people are entitled to hold opinions that differ from their own. There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation. The CEO of Chick-fil-A is like 90. If he was just homophobic, sexist, etc, in private, it wouldn't make news anywhere.
    - learc83 14y ago
      >There is a difference between boycotting people because they have different opinions, and refusing to give money to a company who turns around and uses it to actively support anti-gay legislation. I respect anyone's choice to do so. However, for me personally I see trying to convince other people to share your opinion as just an extension of having an opinion in the first place. I wouldn't vote for a law to ban gay marriage, but I'd still patronize a business who's owner did. Unless that owner was doing something more than peacefully trying to coerce people to vote for said law.
      - 14y ago
chernevik 14y ago
One of the strongest arguments for free speech is the practical impossibility of knowing which views are and aren't correct. Another is the fact that pretty much every apparatus ever erected for the enforcement of "correct views" has ultimately been corrupted and abused.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- rayiner 14y ago
  Free speech entitles you to speak your mind. It doesn't entitle you to be free from dislike and rebuke for the things you say.
  - chernevik 14y ago
    Who says it does? But I myself won't dislike and rebuke people simply for disagreeing with me.
    - rayiner 14y ago
      It's ridiculous to call "spending millions funding bigotry" as a matter of simple "disagreement."
      - chernevik 14y ago
        So your respect for someone's right to a differing opinion stops at the point you regard them as "bigoted." And any third party disagreeing with you about that person's right to their opinion, they're wrong too. What could possibly go wrong?
danielweber 14y ago
What if you have the incorrect social views, as determined by the society at large? Let's say you were in 1880's Deep South and thought black should vote. Do you think there's no problem if people in town refuse to sell you goods for that? Is a Hollywood blacklist just something to shrug off. Obviously you should not be forced, as an individual, to purchase goods or services from someone else you don't like. Going any further than that and society can strangle minority viewpoints almost as oppressively as government. If I refuse to deal with you, or anyone who deals with you, or anyone who deals with anyone who deals with you, than we move away from a pluralistic society towards one where the group most in charge at a given moment wins.