1357: "Free Speech"

[jpk]

No, what I'm saying here is that I hold him accountable for actions he committed in the past, and am unwilling to forgive and forget if he's unwilling to recant.

In that case, either you're objecting to his beliefs and not his actions, or you're objecting to his actions prior to his appointment as CEO.
If the former, then you should be clear that thoughtcrime matters to you, and someone holding the wrong beliefs is, in your view, evil.
If the latter, then this is irrelevant to the point you're responding to. Like a wise man once said, "read the fucking thread".

it's about whether donating having donated to an anti-gay-marriage campaign is a valid reason to want someone fired.

Since the donation was known and considered and rejected as a grounds for not hiring him in the first place, it seems important to get this right.

No one even got fired in the first place.

You actually believe that he just sort of decided to quit? And that the board "urged him to stay"? You're pretty gullible, I think.

*Every* group has a right to voice its concerns and try to organize boycotts against whatever companies are doing things it disagrees with, and every other group has a right to join the protest, start a counter-protest, or remain uninvolved.

Read the fucking thread. It's not about what legal rights you have, it's about whether trying to prevent people from exercising their rights as a citizen is evil. We've most of us determined that it is, at least sometimes (for example, when you're trying to prevent someone from marrying the person they wish to marry). The only thing remaining is to get the consistency bit taken care of - that it's still evil even when it would be convenient for your purposes.

[DeeperThought]

No groups are going around firing anyone. No one even got fired in the first place. *Every* group has a right to voice its concerns and try to organize boycotts against whatever companies are doing things it disagrees with, and every other group has a right to join the protest, start a counter-protest, or remain uninvolved.

But clearly they wanted him gone, I mean, that's the end game.
If he choses to resign fine but it's disingenuous to say that wasn't the objective.

This use to go on all the time in radio.
Remember Imus? Said something some people didn't like and he was fired.

Can you please wrap your head around the abstract concept that this eventual leads to the suppression of Free Speech because of the fear it creates.
And once the Jinni is let out of the bottle there's no putting it back in. Some day, someone will get fired because of something they said that you
support ...
"First they came for the communists and I did not speak out because I was not a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew."

[Weeks]

Can you please wrap your head around the abstract concept that this eventual leads to the suppression of Free Speech because of the fear it creates.

Can you please wrap your head around the fact that this is an absurd slippery slope

[Lenoxus]

So some of the anti-boycott posters have philosophically bitten the bullet and clarified their position on equivalent situations involving other sorts of (arguably) bigoted actions. The varied positions include something like the following:

• It doesn't matter whether a CEO is an outright KKK member, it would still be wrong to hound them out of their job. (It might even be counter-productive, because if you're mean it only turns people against you, and because of the golden parachute, and because we need visible racists, which are in low supply.)
• Go ahead and fire a racist, even if they just said something racist once. Racism is different from Eich's actions, because he's not actually homophobic; in fact, the anti-gay-marriage movement is largely motivated by religion, not hatred of gays.
• Whether or not it's homophobic, opposition to same-sex marriage isn't like racism because the gay rights movement has occurred so swiftly; we've gone from gay marriage being laughable to being a respected civil right within half a generation, so you can't fault those who are slow to catch up.

In response to the last point, I would like to repeat the same refrain from many here: everybody would have been fine with Eich had he rescinded his views, and the fact that he didn't means he was either unprepared for this sort of PR challenge (suggesting he wouldn't make a great CEO anyway) or that he really does value those views more than he values being CEO. Even if he didn't understand "the big deal", he could have acknowledged his own ignorance on the issue. The he didn't is, in a way, unsurprising, because he had cared enough about the issue to spend money on it, not just to vote.

As for the first point, I appreciate the philosophical consistency but very much disagree with the reasoning, which others have dissected well.

The middle one is practically grounds for another thread. Like others had said much earlier in this thread, I don't much care about the motivations behind actions with bigoted effects. I also think it's worth remembering that most of the racist laws in USA history weren't passed and enforced by people who spent all their time hating minorities. If you spent time around any white people in the 1940s, you wouldn't get a "racist" vibe from them, yet the whole of white culture was, I think, collectively racist (and remains so, if less prominently).

When some people here call anti-gay-marriage positions homophobic, others respond that maybe they should get to know the people themselves first before slapping on a label. I contend that what's homophobic is the opposition in and of itself, as an abstract principle. It makes no sense to suppose that it could "turn out" to be non-homophobic. Whether the people who hold that position are homophobic by extension is a matter of semantics. (I would say "Yes in one sense and no in another.")

As for religious motivation of the opposition, that also exists with regard to racism. Until 1978, the Church of Latter-Day Saints was opposed to priesthood for black members. If they'd never rescinded those policies, and a Mormon equivalent of Eich had donated to an anti-miscegenation campaign out of his sincere religious beliefs, the same points here would apply.

[gmalivuk]

No, what I'm saying here is that I hold him accountable for actions he committed in the past, and am unwilling to forgive and forget if he's unwilling to recant.

In that case, either you're objecting to his beliefs and not his actions, or you're objecting to his actions prior to his appointment as CEO.

I am objecting to his actions, but would stop objecting so strongly if he admitted a mistake and recanted the beliefs that led him to do those actions (since obviously he can't go back in time and not do them in the first place).

Read the fucking thread. It's not about what legal rights you have, it's about whether trying to prevent people from exercising their rights as a citizen is evil. We've most of us determined that it is, at least sometimes (for example, when you're trying to prevent someone from marrying the person they wish to marry). The only thing remaining is to get the consistency bit taken care of - that it's still evil even when it would be convenient for your purposes.

Yes, sometimes it's morally bad and sometimes it's not, and the content is what distinguishes between the two.

Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they donate heavily to the KKK is not bad.
Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they buy ingredients for a grilled cheese sandwich is bad.
Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they have given money to an anti-marriage-equality campaign is...?

Well, that's the one question that's actually being debated here. Your inability to recognize that the three are different makes the debate harder, to be sure, but that remains what the actual disagreement is about.

[DeeperThought]

DeeperThought wrote:
Can you please wrap your head around the abstract concept that this eventual leads to the suppression of Free Speech because of the fear it creates.
Can you please wrap your head around the fact that this is an absurd slippery slope

The ACLU set the threshold on what can be considered an absurd slippery slope and I'm nowhere near it.
Talk to the Koch brothers. They were recently called "Un-American" by the leader of the Senate.
Is that enough to sustain a McCarthyism charge? <snark>

[DeeperThought]

Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they donate heavily to the KKK is not bad.

Yes it most certainly is because the definition of what constitutes a bad group (such as the KKK) is entirely subjective.
Remember the UN had a resolution saying that Zionism is racism?
So is somebody who supports Israel as bad as supporting the KKK?
I don't think so but a Palestinian would.
Who decides? The mob? Whoever has the most power?

And this is not a theoretical case.
There are boycotts against companies who do business with Israel.

[avocadoowl]

Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they donate heavily to the KKK is not bad.

Yes it most certainly is because the definition of what constitutes a bad group (such as the KKK) is entirely subjective.
Remember the UN had a resolution saying that Zionism is racism?
So is somebody who supports Israel as bad as supporting the KKK?
I don't think so but a Palestinian would.
Who decides? The mob? Whoever has the most power?

And this is not a theoretical case.
There are boycotts against companies who do business with Israel.

You're missing a key point. If individuals want to boycott, say, Sodastream, that's good for them. They're allowed to boycott whoever they want. I may disagree with why they're boycotting, but I'm not going to disagree with whether or not they should boycott.

[Weeks]

Who decides? The mob? Whoever has the most power?

People with common sense. <snark>

[gmalivuk]

There are boycotts against companies who do business with Israel.

Those boycotters tend to have valid points of their own, and I see nothing wrong with their choice to boycott even though I don't involve myself in the Israel/Palestine debate.

If you think the KKK isn't any worse than Israel, though, then take your pick of any other group. Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, the Westboro Baptist Church, whatever. Is there no group that a CEO could donate to and you'd be fine with a boycott of his or her company in response?

I'm not going to disagree with whether or not they should boycott.

I believe that there are some reasons and things people "shouldn't" boycott, but it's because boycotting those things involves furthering goals I find objectionable in themselves. Boycotting a company for showing a gay couple in an ad is "fine" in the sense that I will fight to protect your right to organize the boycott, but not "fine" in the sense that I will sit silently by and let your boycott go unopposed.

The difference between me and DeeperThought, though, is that I wouldn't dress up my opposition as some kind of noble stand against crypto-fascist neo-McCarthyism or whateverthefuck. I would not say they are wrong to boycott because boycotts suppress the freedom of expression that is necessary for a modern free society to function. I would say they are wrong to boycott because they're doing so for blatantly homophobic reasons and homophobia is wrong.

[DeeperThought]

DeeperThought wrote:
There are boycotts against companies who do business with Israel.
Those boycotters tend to have valid points of their own, and I see nothing wrong with their choice to boycott even though I don't involve myself in the Israel/Palestine debate.

If you think the KKK isn't any worse than Israel, though, then take your pick of any other group. Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, the Westboro Baptist Church, whatever. Is there no group that a CEO could donate to and you'd be fine with a boycott of his or her company in response?

There's a difference between mentally being fine with a boycott and continuing to support it in face of the Free Speech issue.
I absolutely was happy when Bill Maher got canned for his 9/11 comments but it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done.
I can't think of an instance when a CEO type was fired for anything other than being at odds with the political correct crowd,
it's pretty much a one sided thing. I mean, Woody Allen is pretty much a pedophile and he ain't being shunned.

[avocadoowl]

DeeperThought wrote:
There are boycotts against companies who do business with Israel.
Those boycotters tend to have valid points of their own, and I see nothing wrong with their choice to boycott even though I don't involve myself in the Israel/Palestine debate.

If you think the KKK isn't any worse than Israel, though, then take your pick of any other group. Neo-Nazis, NAMBLA, the Westboro Baptist Church, whatever. Is there no group that a CEO could donate to and you'd be fine with a boycott of his or her company in response?

There's a difference between mentally being fine with a boycott and continuing to support it in face of the Free Speech issue.
I absolutely was happy when Bill Maher got canned for his 9/11 comments but it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done.
I can't think of an instance when a CEO type was fired for anything other than being at odds with the political correct crowd,
it's pretty much a one sided thing. I mean, Woody Allen is pretty much a pedophile and he ain't being shunned.

But there are many people who DO boycott his films, including celebrities. But is that an okay boycott because it's largely unsuccessful?

[addams]

Free Speech.

Why not turn it over?
Instead of Boycott, Sell.

Offer something with a Gay Tinge to it.
It that a good idea? Large enough market?

Open Source can be stolen and plagiarized At Will.
Do It! It will be Great!

We can have Gay Source and Commie Source and Horse People Source.
It will be Great! Source can come with Bumper Stickers.

A person with those three stickers is going to be fun or they are a liar.

[gmalivuk]

I absolutely was happy when Bill Maher got canned for his 9/11 comments but it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done.

So... there's nothing anyone can say that should get them fired from any job whatsoever? Because that pretty much seems to be what you're saying, absurd though it may be.

[DeeperThought]

DeeperThought wrote:
I absolutely was happy when Bill Maher got canned for his 9/11 comments but it wasn't right and shouldn't have been done.
So... there's nothing anyone can say that should get them fired from any job whatsoever? Because that pretty much seems to be what you're saying, absurd though it may be.

In the case of an entertainer / commentator pretty much anything should go.
In the case of a CEO, I'd set the bar pretty high. He'd have to be at the Westboro Baptist level of mouthing off.
For instance the basketball guy was recorded saying stuff to his ex-wife by her? (I'm not following it too closely)
If it was a private conversation, no problem.

I mean, in the end, they're just words.
What's the harm?

[gmalivuk]

Okay, so, you admit that we all just set the bar at different levels. Now can you stop pretending we're trying to punish everyone who disagrees with us about anything with financial ruin?

I mean, in the end, they're just words.
What's the harm?

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Are you really this naive? You don't think words can have a harmful effect on anyone or anything? Seriously?

[addams]

Okay, so, you admit that we all just set the bar at different levels. Now can you stop pretending we're trying to punish everyone who disagrees with us about anything with financial ruin?

I mean, in the end, they're just words.
What's the harm?

You have got to be fucking kidding me. Are you really this naive? You don't think words can have a harmful effect on anyone or anything? Seriously?

Words can be dangerous.
The words themselves don't hurt.

I don't understand most languages.
They can fuss and fuss. I don't care.

Words lead to action as night follows day.
Actions can hurt. Actions can hurt, a lot.

Do not allow yourself to use Hateful Language and you may act less Hateful.
The one person you have control of is you.

If your point is tasteless and cruel, yet legal.
You have become The Point.

This Thread does not need to worry.
It has No Point.

It is so pointless as to be funny.

I insulted your Thread.
Should I be living in Dread?

[Weeks]

You don't think words can have a harmful effect on anyone or anything? Seriously?

Well I am immune to any and all word-trickery you might try to inflict on me, you handsome devil.

[jpk]

Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they donate heavily to the KKK is not bad.
Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they buy ingredients for a grilled cheese sandwich is bad.
Trying to prevent someone from retaining their high-paying job at a company I do business with after they have given money to an anti-marriage-equality campaign is...?

Well, that's the one question that's actually being debated here. Your inability to recognize that the three are different makes the debate harder, to be sure, but that remains what the actual disagreement is about.

Your phrasing is mistaken. Here's an amendment:

Trying to get someone fired from their high-paying job at a company I do business with, after they are appointed, having once donated heavily to the KKK is ???
Trying to get someone fired from their high-paying job at a company I do business with, after they are appointed, having once bought ingredients for a grilled cheese sandwich is ???
Trying to get someone fired from their high-paying job at a company I do business with, after they are appointed, having once given money to an anti-marriage-equality campaign is ???


I'm frankly not sure about the moral relevance of the "high-paying" part. Would you have allowed him to stay on if he'd agreed to take $1 annually as compensation? (and no tricks wither - straight up, he does the job and what he gets is a buck a year) If not, then the "high-paying" part can get removed.

Also, I think it's unlikely that you "do business with" Mozilla in any meaningful sense. If you're a typical user, you take something that they make, and use it. Is that "doing business"? I don't know, but it doesn't sound like it to me. I suppose you do have a license agreement with them, since you clicked the little button to install the software. But of course, I don't know how relevant that is. Just to make sure it gets said: you almost certainly have no financial stake in this. The arguments made earlier (by others) about "giving your money to a bigot" were even more ludicrous than usual in this case, because the end user gets the product for free. So I think that clause can go as well.

Finally, we might want to make it clear that in all cases, the offense in question was well known by those charged with hiring the offending party, and those people considered the offense, and it did not sway them to decline to hire him, and that no new offense has been brought up. So we're talking about exactly one offense, which has already been considered and the candidate accepted anyway. And, to be fair, let's also point out that in none of the cases has the target of our ire expressed remorse or regret for their act.

I'm happy to consider these cases, but I want to make sure we're talking about the right story. I think that these modifications get us closer.

So when I look at your cases, the main moral difference is that the KKK is an organization devoted to murder and terrorism, the Prop 8 campaign is devoted to electoral politics, and the cheese sandwich has high cholesterol. That seems like we're comparing apples and oranges and, well, sandwiches. In my view, everyone has the right to take part in election campaigns, assuming compliance with the applicable laws. The KKK candidate's donation was not an act of political participation, it was a donation to a terrorist group. I do not see that contributing to terrorism is a right that I think people should have and that we should respect, so I don't see that there's an ethical problem with trying to punish someone for that if you should choose to do so. On the other hand, the Prop 8 donation was an act of political participation, and I think it is immoral to organize to try to punish someone for exercising that right. So I think it is not bad to try to get the KKK guy fired for contributing to support terrorists, and I think it is bad to try to get the Prop 8 guy fired for contributing to support a repulsive ballot proposition.

And the guy with the grilled cheese sandwich makings should make me one. And a bowl of tomato soup.

[gmalivuk]

Right. So despite all this talk of what's morally right and wrong apart from strict legal rights, you fall back on whether the act in question is legally permitted?

[addams]

You don't think words can have a harmful effect on anyone or anything? Seriously?

Well I am immune to any and all word-trickery you might try to inflict on me, you handsome devil.

Weeks;
You are funny.

Easy for you to say.
You are 2D internet people.

Not 3D everyday people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUUhDoCx8zc

I am so glad for xkcd.
We may be silly.

We get to be silly on xkcd.
I have been exercising my speech here.

Thank you, Weeks.
Comic Relief is so Noble.
(in a funny way)

I was told St. Mathew was the first standup Jewish/Christian Comic.
Kind of like Bill Mayer without Cable. What do you think?

oops. No. He was, just, a Jew.
There were no Christians.

oops. No. He was a Christian from the moment he met The Man.

oops. No. Jews were always Christians.
Some said, "This is The Guy."
Others said, "This is The Guy."

The very same words.
They meant such different thing when they were used.

Freedom!
We can type about Sex, Politics and Religion!
Yey!

Getting it all into one post is a Challenge for the NewBees and Me.

[jpk]

Right. So despite all this talk of what's morally right and wrong apart from strict legal rights, you fall back on whether the act in question is legally permitted?

No, I fall back on whether terrorism and political participation have equivalent moral status. I find that they don't: one is not a right that we should defend, no matter who claims it, and the other is a right that we should defend, no matter who claims it.

[gmalivuk]

On what do you base your claim that there is always a clear and sharp distinction between politics and terrorism?

[Jave D]

So, is opposition to bigotry itself a form of bigotry? I just want to know if I should feel ashamed about not being disgusted at the tragic loss of Eich's position as CEO or not.

I mean, I won't feel ashamed no matter what but it'd be nice to know what the script says.

[avocadoowl]

Right. So despite all this talk of what's morally right and wrong apart from strict legal rights, you fall back on whether the act in question is legally permitted?

No, I fall back on whether terrorism and political participation have equivalent moral status. I find that they don't: one is not a right that we should defend, no matter who claims it, and the other is a right that we should defend, no matter who claims it.

Wait, wait, wait. You oppose Prop 8 but you strenuously defend it because to support it is a right of political activity. Why are you not strenuously defending the boycott as a right of freedom of speech, despite your opposition to it?

[jpk]

On what do you base your claim that there is always a clear and sharp distinction between politics and terrorism?

I did not say there is always a clear and sharp distinction. I said in the cases you mentioned, there is a sharp distinction. Are you saying you're having trouble seeing a distinction here? That's troublesome.

If you want to get into hairsplitting cases, we could, but you asked about a guy who donated to an organization devoted to cold-blooded murder for the purpose of racial terrorism, and a guy who donated to a political campaign, and I frankly have no trouble distinguishing between these.

To be precise, I think that you, gmalivuk, have the right to support political campaigns and not be harassed or bothered for it, and I think that right extends to all people, because that's what a right is. It's not something that I just offer to my friends.
On the other hand, I don't think that supporting the murder of innocent people by self-appointed vigilantes operating outside the bounds of law is a right that you have, nor do I or anyone. Therefore, if you try to punish someone for supporting a group dedicated to that purpose, I think that you have not violated that person's rights.

I hope that's clear enough for you.

[addams]

Right. So despite all this talk of what's morally right and wrong apart from strict legal rights, you fall back on whether the act in question is legally permitted?

No, I fall back on whether terrorism and political participation have equivalent moral status. I find that they don't: one is not a right that we should defend, no matter who claims it, and the other is a right that we should defend, no matter who claims it.

ok.
I think I follow that.
What if you can paint the person that has attempted political participation with the brush of terrorist or Anti-American or some other damming label?

What about skipping the Media Circus? Is it possible to make the argument that harm has been caused to Real Live 3D people for Speaking quietly in public?

What about The Rank and File?
People that do not have Great Big Golden Parachutes?

What about people that take Unpopular Positions?
Simple little people. Rank and File. Like Me?

[jpk]

Wait, wait, wait. You oppose Prop 8 but you strenuously defend it because to support it is a right of political activity. Why are you not strenuously defending the boycott as a right of freedom of speech, despite your opposition to it?

Go back and read where I answered this the last time, or the time before that: You have the right to organize a boycott if you want. That's a legal right that I am not trying to take away from you or anyone. I am a free-speech absolutist, remember? You have the right to freely express your opinions. How many times do I have to say that before you remember it?

The problem is not not legality, it's not your right to organize. The problem is your use of that right to deprive others of those rights, or to punish them for exercising those rights. If you think you can demand a right which you do not extend to others, you are a hypocrite. Brendan Eich is a hypocrite for the same reason - this does not justify your being one, any more than it would justify Eich if some gay person turned out to be a supporter of the boycott.
Rights are not contingent on your approval of the person holding them. If they mean anything, they are universal. So any right that you wish to claim is necessarily a right that you must extend to others. If you disagree with that, tell me why I'm wrong, and how you justify claiming a right which some other person does not have. Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

[Weeks]

Thank you, Weeks.
Comic Relief is so Noble.
(in a funny way)

[avocadoowl]

Wait, wait, wait. You oppose Prop 8 but you strenuously defend it because to support it is a right of political activity. Why are you not strenuously defending the boycott as a right of freedom of speech, despite your opposition to it?

Go back and read where I answered this the last time, or the time before that: You have the right to organize a boycott if you want. That's a legal right that I am not trying to take away from you or anyone. I am a free-speech absolutist, remember? You have the right to freely express your opinions. How many times do I have to say that before you remember it?

The problem is not not legality, it's not your right to organize. The problem is your use of that right to deprive others of those rights, or to punish them for exercising those rights. If you think you can demand a right which you do not extend to others, you are a hypocrite. Brendan Eich is a hypocrite for the same reason - this does not justify your being one, any more than it would justify Eich if some gay person turned out to be a supporter of the boycott.
Rights are not contingent on your approval of the person holding them. If they mean anything, they are universal. So any right that you wish to claim is necessarily a right that you must extend to others. If you disagree with that, tell me why I'm wrong, and how you justify claiming a right which some other person does not have. Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

But if you're a free speech absolutist, and I have the right to organize a boycott, aren't you trying to deny my right of that by trying to convince me not to?

Or is it that, no matter what you argue, you can't actually stop me from organizing a boycott, so it's not like you're actually infringing on my rights? Almost like no matter if we boycott Mozilla because of Eich's donation, we can't actually stop him from donating, so we're not actually infringing his right?

[azaethral]

I think I showed up way too late not to be redundant.
My opinions in short:

It's discrimination to fire someone for being a racist, because everyone is racist to a degree, and it's impossible to leave out the subjectivity. It is ok to fire a racist for actually treating someone in a discriminating way, within the scope of business.

There's legal speech rights (you can't be jailed for what you say) and ideological speech rights (you shouldn't be pressured out of your ability to express your opinion in proper context). The former should do their best to support the latter.

Free speech means you can level all kinds of criticism at someone who's being an asshole. However, just look how wonderfully the two major world powers play together. If you're lucky, you'll be right about who's the asshole least half the time.

What someone believes personally is their own business. But no matter who you are, there will be people who will want to say otherwise about something you believe.

[Jave D]

Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

Oh so you don't support free speech hahaha you're a hypocrite and should feel ashamed. Shame. Shame!

[jpk]

But if you're a free speech absolutist, and I have the right to organize a boycott, aren't you trying to deny my right of that by trying to convince me not to?

No - no more than I would be infringing on your rights to try to convince you to make me a grilled cheese sandwich. I am arguing for an ethical position, not trying to force you to adopt that position.

Or is it that, no matter what you argue, you can't actually stop me from organizing a boycott, so it's not like you're actually infringing on my rights?

No, it is not that. I simply have no right to stop you, even though I disapprove of your action. I do have a right to argue against it, of course.

Almost like no matter if we boycott Mozilla because of Eich's donation, we can't actually stop him from donating, so we're not actually infringing his right?

Is this really so hard for you to keep in your head? I'm trying to be patient, but it's almost like you're being intentionally obtuse. By attacking and attempting to destroy, professionally speaking, a person whose only known crime is peaceful support of a political view that you and I both oppose, you are working to destroy the right of free political expression in this society. I believe that this is wrong, and I think you should stop. I think you should apologize to Eich, and then work against his views with all the strength you have, in a way that respects his rights of political partipation, and mine, and your own.
And because you've probably forgotten already, I do not intend to force you to stop, because that would also be wrong and I do not believe that your being wrong justifies my doing wrong to you, any more than I think that Eich's being wrong justifies your doing wrong to him.

This is really not difficult. Please try a little harder.

[jpk]

Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

Oh so you don't support free speech hahaha you're a hypocrite and should feel ashamed. Shame. Shame!

And you wonder why i don't respond to your posts.

[addams]

oooh. Nice.

You describe reasonable people behaving reasonably.
Where are You from?

The Internet?
What part?

Saneville?

[Jave D]

Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

Oh so you don't support free speech hahaha you're a hypocrite and should feel ashamed. Shame. Shame!

And you wonder why i don't respond to your posts.

Because the truth. It hurts. Hey, I get it. You think free speech is great in theory, just not for people who disagree with you.

Anyway I absolutely do not wonder why you're not-responding to this post.

[jpk]

Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

Oh so you don't support free speech hahaha you're a hypocrite and should feel ashamed. Shame. Shame!

And you wonder why i don't respond to your posts.

Because the truth. It hurts. Hey, I get it. You think free speech is great in theory, just not for people who disagree with you.

Anyway I absolutely do not wonder why you're not-responding to this post.

Do you really, honestly not see a distinction between telling someone that they should shut up and using some sort of coercive force to make them shut up? Is that really a tricky one for you? Or are you trying to be funny, and failing?

[Jave D]

Or else just shut up, because all you seem to do is repeat the same questions over and over like some sort of demented parrot.

Oh so you don't support free speech hahaha you're a hypocrite and should feel ashamed. Shame. Shame!

And you wonder why i don't respond to your posts.

Because the truth. It hurts. Hey, I get it. You think free speech is great in theory, just not for people who disagree with you.

Anyway I absolutely do not wonder why you're not-responding to this post.

Do you really, honestly not see a distinction between telling someone that they should shut up and using some sort of coercive force to make them shut up? Is that really a tricky one for you? Or are you trying to be funny, and failing?

I do see a distinction between your description of the events you're allegedly arguing about and the events themselves.

Still, a very, very wise man once said it's not about the letter of the law, but about the spirit. It's about Principle. Telling someone they should shut up is against that very principle of free speech. Now sure, we could argue that your words, coming, after all, from you, have little actual coercive effect. Still, it seems that when someone is repeating themselves and doing the terrible crime of annoying you, you advocate for their silence.

Which is pretty ironic for a number of reasons, not least of which your whole routine throughout this thread has been exceptionally repetitive - I would guess that's the point, in fact. Hammering, again and again, your interpretations and your assumptions until people just get fed up, bored, or offer you a tantalizingly quick and easy one-liner which you can then respond to and maintain your guise of the voice of reason. So very superior, you do not even need to acknowledge opposing arguments! Then when those people realize there's no point in even trying (since your first response will be to simply express your disdain for them personally), and just put in a bit of snark now and then, then you can acknowledge how you don't acknowledge them, as you've just done. Thereby reinforcing the myth of your own moral superiority which is, of course, the driving narrative at play here. (e.g. We're all hypocrites for not equating Eich getting asked to resign with violation of the right to free speech. You're the non-hypocrite, the staunch defender of Principles). It's also, of course, ironic since what you seem to be arguing for is an exceptionally broad meaning to "freedom of speech" which includes such things as ineffable spirit and essence and, of course, money, but the line is conveniently drawn at the point where your own personal wishes are concerned. As long as you judge you're not actually preventing, i.e. through coercion or force, someone from saying something, you feel free to say "shut up" and will, of course, defend that. An interesting argument, since one could similarly argue that simply by firing Eich years after the fact of his donation, no one is actually preventing him from making that donation (or from making any others, for that matter). Hmm!

But oh dear, I've gone and written a lot. "ludicrously tl;dr," and all that, right? It's okay, you can just tell me to shut up and reiterate your utter lack of respect for me and anyone else who argues with you, if that will make you feel better. The respect of hypocrites is something I can live without.

[Weeks]

jpk you have the right to remain silent

[jpk]

Telling someone they should shut up is against that very principle of free speech.

How so?

Hammering, again and again, your interpretations and your assumptions until people just get fed up, bored, or offer you a tantalizingly quick and easy one-liner which you can then respond to and maintain your guise of the voice of reason. So very superior, you do not even need to acknowledge opposing arguments!

I think you'll find that I've put in a lot of time addressing opposing arguments, even from people who seem bound and determined to be as rude as humanly possible (gmalivuk) or to ask the same questions again and again (avocadoowl) And yes, I've also had some sharp answers for people who seem to be playing intentionally obtuse, or who seem to be playing fast and loose with logic. Welcome to the internet, it happens. If it offends you, you may have to find another forum - for example one without out Mr. Curseypants holding forth. (though I should be nicer now, since his last few posts were actually reasonably civil)

As for my assumptions and my interpretations, the assumptions I've made have so far not seen any serious challenge. The most basic one, for example, is that a right is something that applies generally to all people, and is not contingent on arbitrary distinctions between persons. That is, if I have a right to free speech, then you have the same right to free speech. If I have a right to a pony, then you have a right to a pony. I don't think anyone has yet asserted a view to the contrary, but the contrary view (that I have a right to political action that I approve of, but Eich does not have a right to political action, because I don't approve of the action he takes) is implicit in the pro-boycott position. This is the position of the friends of power and privilege, or of the craven and servile: if you hold this view, either you intend to be the one approving the actions, or you don't mind having your liberty subject to some other person's whims.
There is another possible view for the pro-boycott crowd, of course. That is the view that all speech is liable to sanction, and that there is nothing at all wrong with doing your best to force people to not speak, or else to punish them for speaking. This is a sort of a Hobbesian state of nature, I guess, and he who ventures there had better go well-armed.
Some people have made motions towards that view, but nobody seems to want to take it up and actually defend it, probably because they see it for the non-starter that it is.

As long as you judge you're not actually preventing, i.e. through coercion or force, someone from saying something, you feel free to say "shut up" and will, of course, defend that.

But of course that seems perfectly consistent with the absolutist position on free speech. I allow myself the same right to speak that I allow to anyone. You can suggest that I shut up, as I did. And I can ignore you, as avocadoowl did. How is this bothersome to you? Do you see a contradiction here?

An interesting argument, since one could similarly argue that simply by firing Eich years after the fact of his donation, no one is actually preventing him from making that donation (or from making any others, for that matter). Hmm!

One could argue that. Incorrectly, I think, but one could argue that. Do you intend to make that argument? If you do, I'll have a go at responding to it - it might have to wait until the morning, though, since I have an early train to catch and I really should get to bed.