4 ms·

Yeah, that argument too. I didn't mention the first amendment though. For example it is also a requirement for basic science within the framework of enlightenme

Yeah, that argument too. I didn't mention the first amendment though. For example it is also a requirement for basic science within the framework of enlightenment. I get the xkcd and it certainly has a valid context. This is not it though. This retort just underlines a perspective that is characterized by severe lack of foresight, simple as that.

ceejayoz 1y ago
Perspective: “you can’t point out that I’m being an asshole to my friends and employers” is very non-free-speech. First Amendment or not. Doubly so when the people saying you can’t are the government.
- raxxorraxor 1y ago
  I don't even get the point you are trying to make. The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. This might have happened to Kimmel now. You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Otherwise no sensible dialogue is possible. Obviously that was not the case for the murderer of Kirk and the general sentiment is that some political factions have had difficulties here as well.
  - ceejayoz 1y ago
    > The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. No. The issue is who is doing that action. Illegal speech is not the same as rude speech. My boss can’t declare my opinions illegal. They can fire me. > You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Nah. I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association. The government can’t confiscate my license over the tantrum.
    - raxxorraxor 1y ago
      > No. The issue is who is doing that action. I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the church again. The vanity is the same. This time it is Trump directly. Sure, that is also a problem. Previously it was the handlers of government, so it didn't need to intervene directly. NGOs or just companies getting government grants, didn't matter. > I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association. Of course and I welcome you to do so. We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We are talking about instances where people had the wrong political opinion and some faculties are in dire need of reform because of the structures they formed by excluding everyone not in line. That is a problem, obviously. A problem best described as a violation of freedom of expression. You can look up the definition on wikipedia. In the first sentence there is something about repercussions. Easy concept, you would think... > Wiki: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction What do think retaliation would mean, hm?
      - ceejayoz 1y ago
        If you make your church the government, it is... the government. Again, "I think your speech sucks" and "I have the authority to jail you for your speech because I think it sucks" are vastly different things. > We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We're talking about Jimmy Kimmell's employer being threatened by the government to punish him for his speech. Which wasn't even particularly rude.
        raxxorraxor 1y ago
        He was fired by Disney. In the same way others were fired from their position due to political pressures. I don't see a difference.
        ceejayoz 1y ago

ceejayoz 1y ago

Perspective: “you can’t point out that I’m being an asshole to my friends and employers” is very non-free-speech. First Amendment or not. Doubly so when the people saying you can’t are the government.

raxxorraxor 1y ago
I don't even get the point you are trying to make. The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. This might have happened to Kimmel now. You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Otherwise no sensible dialogue is possible. Obviously that was not the case for the murderer of Kirk and the general sentiment is that some political factions have had difficulties here as well.
- ceejayoz 1y ago
  > The issue is removing people due to their political opinions. No. The issue is who is doing that action. Illegal speech is not the same as rude speech. My boss can’t declare my opinions illegal. They can fire me. > You are still free to associate with anyone freely, but there is an expectation that you behave like an adult and can withstand different opinions. Nah. I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association. The government can’t confiscate my license over the tantrum.
  - raxxorraxor 1y ago
    > No. The issue is who is doing that action. I wholeheartedly disagree. If you are excluded in research for your opinion, we could just as well install the church again. The vanity is the same. This time it is Trump directly. Sure, that is also a problem. Previously it was the handlers of government, so it didn't need to intervene directly. NGOs or just companies getting government grants, didn't matter. > I can throw a tantrum, publicly decry you as an asshole and go no-contact with you. That’s legal, and part of my freedom of expression and association. Of course and I welcome you to do so. We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We are talking about instances where people had the wrong political opinion and some faculties are in dire need of reform because of the structures they formed by excluding everyone not in line. That is a problem, obviously. A problem best described as a violation of freedom of expression. You can look up the definition on wikipedia. In the first sentence there is something about repercussions. Easy concept, you would think... > Wiki: Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction What do think retaliation would mean, hm?
    - ceejayoz 1y ago
      If you make your church the government, it is... the government. Again, "I think your speech sucks" and "I have the authority to jail you for your speech because I think it sucks" are vastly different things. > We are not talking about instances where people were rude to their bosses. We're talking about Jimmy Kimmell's employer being threatened by the government to punish him for his speech. Which wasn't even particularly rude.
      - raxxorraxor 1y ago
        He was fired by Disney. In the same way others were fired from their position due to political pressures. I don't see a difference.
        ceejayoz 1y ago