4 ms·

Whether I agree with your point or not, I don't think that changes anything. My argument stands even if I change the words "now that" into "since"

by jeremyt 12y ago

ubernostrum 12y ago
Except people do have a right to associate or not associate with others on the basis of their respective views. In the case of Brendan Eich, a lot of people made it clear that they didn't want to associate with him, and he chose to resign. That is, I believe, the definition of how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work; you get to have your view, somebody else gets to have a different view, and if one of them "wins" then... it wins.
- jeremyt 12y ago
  You call it a marketplace of ideas; I call it tyranny of the majority.
  - shiven 12y ago
    Perhaps you'd prefer the tyranny of the minority? Majority rule is a feature (or bug) of democracy. If you disagree with the prevailing views of the, in your words, tyrannical, majority, then you need to be more vocal, not less, in order to foster change. Yes, there will be consequences, but depending on the strength of your conviction and the fundamental correctness of your (minority) views, change can be brought about. Cases in point: Gandhi, MLK and leaders of other social movements who did it. At great personal price, yes, but nonetheless, did create change. TL;DR: Put up or Shut up. Change comes at a price.
    - jeremyt 12y ago
      Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one. As in: if I have a political view that differs from the majority, I'd like to be able to hold that view and still keep my job based on how well I do my job. What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK? I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by. If given the choice between speaking out and perhaps facing consequences or keeping quiet, I think most people will just say forget it and keep quiet. You may see this as a feature, but this outcome is contrary to the stated goals of the founders of this nonprofit. Seriously, I really don't want to live in a world where I have to be a Gandhi or a MLK on every issue on which I disagree with the majority.
      - shiven 12y ago
        What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK? For the record, both Gandhi and MLK had families. They were NOT some retro-day techno-nomad free-agent dude-bro single males, with no responsibilities and little to lose. [A]. Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one. [B]. I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by. To me [A] and [B] appear self-contradictory. You call me out on living in a dream world, but start your answer by describing your own. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is bitter and burnt. My point about everything coming at a price still stands. Your refutations are beating around it, not on it.
      - deleted 12y ago
        [deleted]

Whether I agree with your point or not, I don't think that changes anything. My argument stands even if I change the words "now that" into "since"

by jeremyt 12y ago

Whether I agree with your point or not, I don't think that changes anything. My argument stands even if I change the words "now that" into "since"

ubernostrum 12y ago

Except people do have a right to associate or not associate with others on the basis of their respective views. In the case of Brendan Eich, a lot of people made it clear that they didn't want to associate with him, and he chose to resign. That is, I believe, the definition of how a marketplace of ideas is supposed to work; you get to have your view, somebody else gets to have a different view, and if one of them "wins" then... it wins.

jeremyt 12y ago
You call it a marketplace of ideas; I call it tyranny of the majority.
- shiven 12y ago
  Perhaps you'd prefer the tyranny of the minority? Majority rule is a feature (or bug) of democracy. If you disagree with the prevailing views of the, in your words, tyrannical, majority, then you need to be more vocal, not less, in order to foster change. Yes, there will be consequences, but depending on the strength of your conviction and the fundamental correctness of your (minority) views, change can be brought about. Cases in point: Gandhi, MLK and leaders of other social movements who did it. At great personal price, yes, but nonetheless, did create change. TL;DR: Put up or Shut up. Change comes at a price.
  - jeremyt 12y ago
    Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one. As in: if I have a political view that differs from the majority, I'd like to be able to hold that view and still keep my job based on how well I do my job. What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK? I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by. If given the choice between speaking out and perhaps facing consequences or keeping quiet, I think most people will just say forget it and keep quiet. You may see this as a feature, but this outcome is contrary to the stated goals of the founders of this nonprofit. Seriously, I really don't want to live in a world where I have to be a Gandhi or a MLK on every issue on which I disagree with the majority.
    - shiven 12y ago
      What if I have a family, need my job, and don't have the luxury of being a Gandhi or an MLK? For the record, both Gandhi and MLK had families. They were NOT some retro-day techno-nomad free-agent dude-bro single males, with no responsibilities and little to lose. [A]. Well, no, I'd really prefer the tyranny of no one. [B]. I don't know what kind of dream world you live in, but most people are just trying to get by. To me [A] and [B] appear self-contradictory. You call me out on living in a dream world, but start your answer by describing your own. Wake up and smell the coffee. It is bitter and burnt. My point about everything coming at a price still stands. Your refutations are beating around it, not on it.
    - deleted 12y ago
      [deleted]