3 ms·

You seem to have missed my point. Every desirable opinion that people hold today was once an undesirable opinion in years past. It's only by radical people goi

You seem to have missed my point. Every desirable opinion that people hold today was once an undesirable opinion in years past. It's only by radical people going against the grain that we have ended up with the relatively free and liberal society we have today. Support for "heavy social pressure" is support for the status quo. Personally, I'm hoping for some improvement in the state of things during my lifetime.

CamperBob2 12y ago
Unfortunately, people who share your point of view don't appear to have thought it through very far. For instance, a consequence of what you're saying would be that Mozilla wouldn't have had the right to fire Eich over his unrelated political actions. To some of us, that's almost as objectionable as restrictions on speech. Here's a hint, if you want to understand my point of view: it's easy to identify the Bad Guy in any conversation. It's whoever resorts to the threat of physical force first. Apart from that, it's all fair game: no one has the right to remain unoffended.
- mercer 12y ago
  I agree with you, but let me make a counter-argument. My apologies for coming across a bit pedantic perhaps, but I think this is an important problem. Social pressure can have a big impact, and while it's not the same as physical force (or the threat of it), I think there are cases where it can be harmful enough to blur the line that I once thought would be easily drawn at 'physical force'. There are areas in 'free societies' where being openly gay, or openly atheist is legal, but is (or was) socially unacceptable. Finding work as a gay or atheist teacher in such areas might be close to impossible, but for various reasons leaving such an area might be equally close to impossible or at least highly undesirable. As a result, there are gay teachers who, practically speaking, cannot be gay, not even in the 'privacy' of their home, even though legally they are protected from physical violence. There are also atheist couples who are all but forced to go to church on Sundays lest they incur the social exclusion of all those around them. While I don't know if a state-enforced no-discrimination policy is a good or even acceptable solution, I find it hard to dismiss this thought outright. Perhaps it is. And so in the case of Eich, for example, the only reason why I feel that Mozilla had the 'right' to fire him is that I find it hard to believe that this keeps him from living a good life outside of Mozilla. But if society were to change and all companies were to fire Eich for his views, then perhaps government intercession to prevent this might be necessary. Because yes, I do think we need to protect those who have ideas we don't like, to the point where we might have to actively interact with them on a regular basis. In fact, I think it's a good thing. 'Good' beliefs should regularly be challenged. That said, I'm peppering the post with 'mights' and 'perhapses' because I also see the drawbacks and practical difficulties of this approach. Forcing a Christian school to allow a gay atheist teacher to work there might not solve the social exclusion issue, for example. But all I'm trying to say is that I find it much more difficult now to take the stance that we should draw the line at physical force. We're too reliant as humans on social contact and fulfillment to ignore the dangers of social exclusion.

CamperBob2 12y ago

Unfortunately, people who share your point of view don't appear to have thought it through very far. For instance, a consequence of what you're saying would be that Mozilla wouldn't have had the right to fire Eich over his unrelated political actions. To some of us, that's almost as objectionable as restrictions on speech. Here's a hint, if you want to understand my point of view: it's easy to identify the Bad Guy in any conversation. It's whoever resorts to the threat of physical force first. Apart from that, it's all fair game: no one has the right to remain unoffended.

mercer 12y ago
I agree with you, but let me make a counter-argument. My apologies for coming across a bit pedantic perhaps, but I think this is an important problem. Social pressure can have a big impact, and while it's not the same as physical force (or the threat of it), I think there are cases where it can be harmful enough to blur the line that I once thought would be easily drawn at 'physical force'. There are areas in 'free societies' where being openly gay, or openly atheist is legal, but is (or was) socially unacceptable. Finding work as a gay or atheist teacher in such areas might be close to impossible, but for various reasons leaving such an area might be equally close to impossible or at least highly undesirable. As a result, there are gay teachers who, practically speaking, cannot be gay, not even in the 'privacy' of their home, even though legally they are protected from physical violence. There are also atheist couples who are all but forced to go to church on Sundays lest they incur the social exclusion of all those around them. While I don't know if a state-enforced no-discrimination policy is a good or even acceptable solution, I find it hard to dismiss this thought outright. Perhaps it is. And so in the case of Eich, for example, the only reason why I feel that Mozilla had the 'right' to fire him is that I find it hard to believe that this keeps him from living a good life outside of Mozilla. But if society were to change and all companies were to fire Eich for his views, then perhaps government intercession to prevent this might be necessary. Because yes, I do think we need to protect those who have ideas we don't like, to the point where we might have to actively interact with them on a regular basis. In fact, I think it's a good thing. 'Good' beliefs should regularly be challenged. That said, I'm peppering the post with 'mights' and 'perhapses' because I also see the drawbacks and practical difficulties of this approach. Forcing a Christian school to allow a gay atheist teacher to work there might not solve the social exclusion issue, for example. But all I'm trying to say is that I find it much more difficult now to take the stance that we should draw the line at physical force. We're too reliant as humans on social contact and fulfillment to ignore the dangers of social exclusion.