4 ms·
It's actually an interesting question: When does a political opinion become untenable? Slavery was once a political opinion. Women's suffrage as well. There
by nostromo 13y ago
It's actually an interesting question: When does a political opinion become untenable?
Slavery was once a political opinion. Women's suffrage as well. There are many other more extreme examples from abroad.
Calling a position political doesn't absolve its owner from consequences.
I think in the Bay Area, opposing gay marriage has crossed over, and is no longer simply a political opinion upon which decent people may disagree.
- MrZongle2 13y agoand is no longer simply a political opinion upon which decent people may disagree. So....what shall be done with the people who have been deemed indecent? Rounded up, perhaps? Subjected to re-education?
- jbooth 13y agoNo, they'll simply deny they ever held the view in a few years, all on their own. See: Segregation.
- MrZongle2 13y agoWhy might they do that, theoretically speaking? Edit: A downvote for asking a question? Really? Is the answer that terrifying?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- phillmv 13y agoBecause they'll be socially shunned by people who find their views to be embarrassing.
- MrZongle2 13y agoIs shame, then, the way social issues should be addressed?
- phillmv 13y agoSeparating this sort of stuff into "social issues" is I think an incorrect way to look at it. We're talking about changing normative group positions in a complex society that has delegated huge swaths of norm policing to immensely powerful institutions. So, shame is one way. You have to make it shameful in the first place - and then you still have to change the institutions.
- makomk 13y agoHopefully because they'll no longer be able to justify - even to themselves - why they thought those views made sense in the first place.
- tinalumfoil 13y ago>When does a political opinion become untenable? Never? People should be judged by how qualified they are, not what their political views are. Even if I was hiring a vocal neo-nazi I would try to not let that effect my decision.
- npizzolato 13y agoI could not disagree more. Hiring the neo-nazi as the CEO of a major corporation who will make decisions that will directly effect the lives of anyone working for that corporation and of those who use the corporation's products is promoting those beliefs. It is saying that, despite you taking actions to strip away basic human rights of groups of people, we want you to represent us. These are the decisions that lead to corporations acting greedy and caring only about their bottom line. We should not be promoting this way of thinking. Some things are more important. The more someone's actions can impact other people, the more they should be judged by their character.
- freditup 13y agoI think you're right that this is the actual question. Perhaps to my original posts detriment, there obviously does come a time when holding a particular position on an issue is unacceptable. For example, as pointed out many times here, being against interracial marriage in modern times. I think in America the issue hasn't crossed over yet, but those in favor of gay marriage wish it has, because it's always nice to be on the superior side, and makes the argument much easier when you can just call your opponent a few names to send them scurrying away. Essentially, those who agree with gay marriage ran out of patience with those who disagree. I think on 'live' political issues like the gay marriage debate, this is bad. I also think those against gay marriage would do better if making an honest argument about their reasoning. For example: "Gay marriage is morally wrong in my opinion, and I believe the government should legislate on moral sexual issues." It's legitimate to think a government can and should have the authority to legislate on moral issues.
- anonymoushn 13y agoAs someone who opposes all marriage, I am sad to learn that I should not be hired.