1357: "Free Speech"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:02 am UTC

addams wrote:The Lion's Share of this thread is one explanation after another of Bad Positions.
You don't Really want to read another one; Do you?


I suppose you've got a point. Clearly no progress is being made here.
Are you suggesting that people are a waste of time?

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:03 am UTC

Weeks wrote:Feel free to start a thread in Serious Business where Azrael will make sure no one makes funny jokes at your expense, and you are more readily kicked for not reading the thread.



Were there funny jokes? I must have missed those.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:03 am UTC

jsharpminor wrote:Basically what you're saying is that you're totally okay with living in a world that can decide that your opinions are objectionable, and that you will lose your livelihood on a political whim.

I'm actually saying pretty much the opposite of that, but totally missing the point appears to be par for the course with you.

You can have free speech, and you can say whatever you want, as long as your ideas match up with the whims of the masses. If not, you can either change your views or face termination of any job you ever held.

If the "whims of the masses" are whether my company should continue having its products purchased, I'm hardpressed to identify your argument as anything other than "the populace must buy my product or be deemed freedom-hating hypocrites".

Let's say I murder babies. The public knows about this. Person X needs to buy some laundry detergent, and has a choice between product Y, whose company is run by a CEO who doesn't murder babies, and with that CEO receiving a large portion of that company's profits, and as its CEO directing the company's funds towards charities that save babies, or my product Z, the profits of which go either to my paycheck, or to the company's coffers which as CEO I direct toward dronestrikes on babies.

In what twisted point of view is it not a fundamental freedom for the customer to say "I think I'll buy product Y, as I don't want my money to go toward killing babies."

For fuck's sake.

I don't see any personal attacks coming from jpk, but I see plenty coming at him. Frankly I find it strange that you'd even throw this accusation.

Hm. I suppose that must be embarrassing.

for example one without out Mr. Curseypants holding forth
(and others of this ilk)

I could find more for you, if you really want to turn this into a contest of which side has the more pleasing tone.

As a disclaimer, I gave you a personal attack at the beginning of my post, I guess, for your willfully strawmanning my post.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:28 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:Basically what you're saying is that you're totally okay with living in a world that can decide that your opinions are objectionable, and that you will lose your livelihood on a political whim.

I'm actually saying pretty much the opposite of that, but totally missing the point appears to be par for the course with you.

You can have free speech, and you can say whatever you want, as long as your ideas match up with the whims of the masses. If not, you can either change your views or face termination of any job you ever held.

If the "whims of the masses" are whether my company should continue having its products purchased, I'm hardpressed to identify your argument as anything other than "the populace must buy my product or be deemed freedom-hating hypocrites".

Let's say I murder babies.

Let's not. You are entirely missing the point. Eich is being held accountable here not for his actions (murdering babies) or even for his donations (prop 8) but for his viewpoints. That's the moving target that's really hard to hit. Let's be clear about that though. When it is said that he " has not renounced or apologized for his views," it is clear that it his freedom- not of speech, nor even of expression, but freedom of thought that is being attacked. jpk asked what I thought was a simple question that has yet to be addressed: who cares what the views are of the leader of a software company? The answer is clear: Nobody cares, unless his views happen to be the wrong ones. Then suddenly everyone cares.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:35 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
jsharpminor wrote:Basically what you're saying is that you're totally okay with living in a world that can decide that your opinions are objectionable, and that you will lose your livelihood on a political whim.

I'm actually saying pretty much the opposite of that, but totally missing the point appears to be par for the course with you.


You're right, actually. Your position is that people you don't like can lose their livelihood on a political whim. That's exactly the opposite of you yourself being in that position, which would be abominable, totally against all the laws of nature and the good ordering of society.
Your position sets up two classes of people with two sets of rights, and the world is placed into one class or another based on your personal preferences. If that bothers you, stop arguing for it.


You can have free speech, and you can say whatever you want, as long as your ideas match up with the whims of the masses. If not, you can either change your views or face termination of any job you ever held.

If the "whims of the masses" are whether my company should continue having its products purchased, I'm hardpressed to identify your argument as anything other than "the populace must buy my product or be deemed freedom-hating hypocrites".


Read the fucking thread. Either answer the objections to this fallacy, or stop committing it.


Let's say I murder babies. The public knows about this. Person X needs to buy some laundry detergent, and has a choice between product Y, whose company is run by a CEO who doesn't murder babies, and with that CEO receiving a large portion of that company's profits, and as its CEO directing the company's funds towards charities that save babies, or my product Z, the profits of which go either to my paycheck, or to the company's coffers which as CEO I direct toward dronestrikes on babies.

In what twisted point of view is it not a fundamental freedom for the customer to say "I think I'll buy product Y, as I don't want my money to go toward killing babies."


So many failures here, where shall we start?
First of all, the suggestion that lawfully engaging in an act of political advocacy by supporting a campaign that he, for whatever reason, believes in, is morally equivalent to killing babies is so off the mark, it really calls into question whether there's any point in going any further. One more time (read the fucking thread!): The right to support your political views is one that everyone has, and which everyone must support, or else give up. If you claim the right to engage in the boycott, then you are claiming the right to advocate for your political positions, and your chosen approach is to try to prevent other people from engaging in political advocacy. Therefore you are admitting that you do not believe in civil rights except for those you deem acceptable - which is exactly what you correctly accuse Eich of doing. The right to murder is not one that anyone claims is held generally, or should be held generally, and it's not one that most people claim for themselves. The comparison fails, and your argument has completely shit the bed in the first sentence.
Continuing:
Your choice of "killing babies" as an example of a vile act which one would like to address by means of a boycott brings to mind a practical consideration. (digression: WTF??? A boycott? Could you not call 911 and get the police in on the baby-killing CEO? Maybe make the calls to end the boycott afterwards? End of digression) The practical consideration is one that I've raised before, but since you haven't bothered to read the fucking thread (as our little friend whom I lovingly refer to by his pet name of "Mr. Curseypants" likes to say) I'll repeat it briefly here. I have been an activist for abortion rights for my entire adult life, which is to say, over twenty years. I have given time and money to defending the rights of women to have control over their bodies and their medical decisions. I stood in front of clinics during the abortion wars with a bright yellow vest, knowing that if I were to pat down a nutbag and find a weapon, I would be the nearest one to them when they went for it. I'm not saying this to make myself out to be a hero, it's just what I did. And if I were to be in line to be a CEO, this would be well known, and in the world you're constructing, I could not both engage publicly in supporting women's rights to choice and also indulge any hope of taking a leadership role in a company like Mozilla. Is this really what you want to convey to kids today?



EDIT: Fuck, forgot this one:
or to the company's coffers which as CEO I direct toward dronestrikes on babies.

Did you miss the distinction between actions taken as CEO and personal beliefs of the holder of that office? If you can't be bothered to (all together now) read the fucking thread, take my word for it: I've said over and over again that if you found any actions taken by Eich in his capacity as CEO (abusive behavior, promoting his views on company time or showing favoritism to those holding his views, etc) then this would change my view of the situation completely, and I would have no objection to a boycott, if people wanted to take that action. He has a right to his beliefs, and he has a right to exercise those beliefs in speech and in political action, but his actions as CEO are another matter. This would incude, obviously enough, ordering drone strikes on babies.

EDIT AGAIN: And this one:
In what twisted point of view is it not a fundamental freedom for the customer to say "I think I'll buy product Y, as I don't want my money to go toward killing babies."


If you missed the discussion of the compatibility of your right to buy the products that you wish and the principle that it is evil to attempt to use force to compel someone's beliefs, you know what to do. (RTFT!) If you haven't got hold of the notion that there's a difference between buying a company's product and making a donation to its CEO, do it again. Twice. (hint: "Mozilla is not a bake sale")

For fuck's sake.


Yes, very much so.

I don't see any personal attacks coming from jpk, but I see plenty coming at him. Frankly I find it strange that you'd even throw this accusation.

Hm. I suppose that must be embarrassing.


This is an attack? The guy can't support his views. That's embarrassing. Or at least, I do him the honor of assuming he's capable of shame. Do you not think he is?

for example one without out Mr. Curseypants holding forth


Given the pottymouth on this guy, I think it's a fair handle for him.
Last edited by jpk on Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:48 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:40 am UTC

Weeks wrote:
Belial, in this very thread, 17 pages ago wrote:I have a greater tolerance than most for swatting down the same arguments again and again but there comes a time where it gets tiresome. And no matter how many times the same argument has been had, everyone thinks their take on the debate is original and worldshattering. The 1st "Okay, but what if rich white dudes are the real oppressed people here" gets a well-thought-out argument. The 500th gets "shush, adults are talking".


I understand that point but I'm not totally sure I buy into it. There are some topics where you expect eternal dispute, so if someone were to say that it's been settled, I'd feel like something wasn't completely right in the world. The 500+th repetition comes with the territory.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4943
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Pfhorrest » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:47 am UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:I'm hardpressed to identify your argument as anything other than "the populace must buy my product or be deemed freedom-hating hypocrites". [...] In what twisted point of view is it not a fundamental freedom for the customer to say "I think I'll buy product Y, as I don't want my money to go toward killing babies."

This is the real strawman I'm seeing in this thread. I've not seen anyone claim that any consumer making any purchasing decision for any reason was wrong in any way, either in a way that should be somehow illegal or just in a weaker moral that's-not-nice kind of way. People are saying that OKCupid setting out specifically to get Eich fired for his opinions was a not-nice thing to do, and that if Mozilla actually fired Eich because a bunch of people lead on by OKCupid demanded it, that would also have been a not nice thing to do (and should maybe not be a legal thing to do, according to some people). Yet somehow it seems everyone on the other side thinks that said people want consumers to be at least morally if not legally obligated to patronize Mozilla and use their products.

And just to remind everyone what side I'm on: I am queer myself and think that Eich's opinions on homosexuality are completely wrong, without sound justification, and that laws like Prop 8 should be unconstitutional and legally impermissible. But I absolutely support his right to argue his opinion, and to pay others to argue it, without legal consequences, and though I wouldn't go so far as to say it should be illegal to fire him for his opinions -- that he should have a right against extra-legal consequences for his opinions -- doing so, or even pushing to have it done (whether successful or not), is still a distasteful and unsettling thing to do, a thing not conducive to a free and open exchange of ideas.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:05 am UTC

jpk: I saw that you took the time to write a rather long post, but then I saw that the second sentence therein was yet another bullshit misinterpretation of any real position anyone in the thread holds, and I realized that the rest probably wasn't going to contain anything new or accurate, either.

In case you're still just dumbfounded as to what I'm talking about, it was the bit where you talked about how "people" (which no one has ever said should include all people) we "don't like" (which wasn't actually the problem here) can "lose their livelihood" (which didn't happen) on a "political whim" (which wasn't why it happened).
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

blowfishhootie
Posts: 486
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 11:13 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby blowfishhootie » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:44 am UTC

Pfhorrest wrote:I've not seen anyone claim that any consumer making any purchasing decision for any reason was wrong in any way.


Then you haven't been paying very close attention.

In addition to the constant comments that the boycott was immoral, someone about 25 pages ago actually tried to suggest that not buying things is illegal in some instances. Not surprisingly, that person suddenly disappeared from the thread when challenged to provide a link to such a law.

jpk
Posts: 607
Joined: Sat Nov 13, 2010 7:33 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jpk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:50 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:jpk: I saw that you took the time to write a rather long post, but then I saw that the second sentence therein was yet another bullshit misinterpretation of any real position anyone in the thread holds, and I realized that the rest probably wasn't going to contain anything new or accurate, either.

In case you're still just dumbfounded as to what I'm talking about, it was the bit where you talked about how "people" (which no one has ever said should include all people) we "don't like" (which wasn't actually the problem here) can "lose their livelihood" (which didn't happen) on a "political whim" (which wasn't why it happened).


So we've given up on reading the fucking thread, have we? But luckily, you can miss the point just by reading a single line - capital stuff, sir.

which no one has ever said should include all people


That's exactly what I said - it doesn't include all people. The position you're defending is that it is right and proper to divide the world into classes and assign rights to them, and to arrogate to yourself the privilege of determining who gets what rights depending on the content of the views they want to express. That's not a position that you like to have stated so plainly, but it's the position you're defending. You think that KrytenKoro (for example) has a right and should have to take a certain political action, but Brendan Eich should not have the right to take a similar political action, and the difference is that you agree with the one and you don't agree with the other.
So you are correct, not all people are included. The people not to be included are the people who you disagree with. This does not salvage your position in any way. In fact, it makes it seem a little despicable. But only because it is. And if you don't think it is, explain - in words, if you don't mind - how it is that Eich's right to engage in political action (with the ultimate goal being the suppression of someone's civil rights) is different from KrytenKoro's right to engage in political action (with the end goal of suppressing the political rights of others). If you support one and not the other, it can only be an arbitrary selection, because there is no principled distinction to be drawn between the two. Both are political actions which are despicable but which must be tolerated in the name of free political participation of all citizens.

"don't like" (which wasn't actually the problem here)

Here I admit I was carrying over the language from jsharpminor's post, for the sake of continuity. People you "don't like" is not strictly accurate. It would be more accurate to say "people arbitrarily chosen by you". Let it be so amended.

can "lose their livelihood" (which didn't happen)


Well, the guy was fired from his position as a result of your action, and that was the stated purpose of the action you took. So in my book, you're kind of stuck with that one. Are you going back to saying "nobody got fired" and "nobody meant to get anyone fired"? If so, we can have a round of our favorite singalong. Go read the fucking thread. Or are you admitting that your side's tactics were a total screwup? I mean, you achieved your objective and got the guy fired, but you still failed to get what you really wanted, since you forgot that CEOs get paid for getting fired. Yeah, in that sense, he didn't lose any livelihood - instead, Mozilla lost a shit ton of money, and the Mozilla community lost all of the developer time that money could have bought. But it wasn't for lack of effort on your part, was it?

jsharpminor
Posts: 14
Joined: Wed May 11, 2011 5:24 am UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby jsharpminor » Tue Apr 29, 2014 6:10 am UTC

blowfishhootie wrote:
Pfhorrest wrote:I've not seen anyone claim that any consumer making any purchasing decision for any reason was wrong in any way.


Then you haven't been paying very close attention.

In addition to the constant comments that the boycott was immoral,

Note that he's talking about any one consumer. And what most of that side is arguing isn't that all boycotts are evil - it's just when a boycott is specifically aimed at getting one man fired for his opinion - that it is obvious that he is not being granted any freedom of conscience.

gmalivuk wrote:jpk: I saw that you took the time to write a rather long post, but then I saw that the second sentence therein was yet another bullshit misinterpretation of any real position anyone in the thread holds, and I realized that the rest probably wasn't going to contain anything new or accurate, either.

In case you're still just dumbfounded as to what I'm talking about, it was the bit where you talked about how "people" (which no one has ever said should include all people) we "don't like" (which wasn't actually the problem here) can "lose their livelihood" (which didn't happen) on a "political whim" (which wasn't why it happened).


No, of course, it doesn't include all people. It only includes those people whom we can justify in the heat of the moment by stating that someone in that position shouldn't be allowed to be there and hold that opinion. Which, when you go about inflating it in the heat of the moment, could basically justify such criticism of anybody from a Microsoft chair to a clerk in a public records office, to city councilman, to farmer, to a beat cop, to a novelist or musician, and the list goes on.

And, in the heat of the moment, the issue can be anything from taking the wrong side on the debate on abortion, creation, Israel-Palestine, the Iraq war, black history month, to the Ukraine crisis, and the list goes on.

A freedom that comes with so many exceptions, with more to be added at the whim of the whipped-up public, isn't any freedom at all.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 11:35 am UTC

jpk wrote:Well, the guy was fired from his position as a result of your action ...


If company statements are to believed, then technically, he wasn't fired, asked, or pressured to leave by anyone within the company that was in a position to do so, but rather he stepped down of his own accord (ostensibly because the controversy was a disruption to the company and a distraction to himself).

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:07 pm UTC

The two basic arguments about Eich seem pretty clear to me, and both seem perfectly valid. I doubt that one will ever totally win out over the other.

On one hand is the view that a personal activity that is legitimate under the law, not uncommon, and not connected to a person's job should be completely outside the scope of whether a person should be able to hold their position at their job. If the beliefs which led them to their actions somehow make them unsuitable for the job, then it should have come out before they were selected for the job. Not respecting this principle allows the argument to be turned around easily to oppose gay employees.

On the other hand, there's the view that the law that he was supporting shouldn't even have been up for discussion because it's so far outside the bounds of acceptable human rights to begin with. For that reason, any argument that's based around free speech and personal freedoms is cynical at best. Also, as far as expressions of scorn directed at a particular person go, boycotts directed at their company and derisive public commentary (considering that the person has a base of support) are reasonably fair game.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:46 pm UTC

The problem with the first view isn't that it's wront but that it completely misses the point. For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be). For another, firing someone isn't a thing that happened. For a third, firing someone for supporting gay rights, for example, is bad because homophobia is bad, not because firing people for their political actions is categorically wrong.

That third thing, I believe, is the most important distinction that some people seem unable to get through their pretty little heads.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 12:52 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:The problem with the first view isn't that it's wront but that it completely misses the point. For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be). For another, firing someone isn't a thing that happened. For a third, firing someone for supporting gay rights, for example, is bad because homophobia is bad, not because firing people for their political actions is categorically wrong.

That third thing, I believe, is the most important distinction that some people seem unable to get through their pretty little heads.


It really makes me question the true politics and beliefs of people in this thread. If they can't understand that ideas of equality don't change on a whim, and are actually pretty logically consistent, then I don't even know.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 1:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be).


If I'm reading that correctly, and the anyone in question is LGBT employees, then you may want to check your notes.

For a third, firing someone for supporting gay rights, for example, is bad because homophobia is bad, not because firing people for their political actions is categorically wrong.


Correction, the effects of homophobia are bad. However, fear and suspicion of the unfamiliar in and of itself is natural and universal. If you could somehow entirely do away with the sentiment of unease at things which are unfamiliar, you'd be doing away with the ability to learn to appreciate the same things, tolerance would be meaningless, and you'd be able to justify supporting terrorists simply for being terrorists. Hardcore phobias are nothing more than extreme forms of the same sort of unease.

User avatar
Lenoxus
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 11:14 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Lenoxus » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:11 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be).


If I'm reading that correctly, and the anyone in question is LGBT employees, then you may want to check your notes.

For a third, firing someone for supporting gay rights, for example, is bad because homophobia is bad, not because firing people for their political actions is categorically wrong.


Correction, the effects of homophobia are bad. However, fear and suspicion of the unfamiliar in and of itself is natural and universal. If you could somehow entirely do away with the sentiment of unease at things which are unfamiliar, you'd be doing away with the ability to learn to appreciate the same things, tolerance would be meaningless, and you'd be able to justify supporting terrorists simply for being terrorists. Hardcore phobias are nothing more than extreme forms of the same sort of unease.


Although it is connected to fear, the term "homophobia" has acquired a broader meaning of anti-gay sentiment in general, equivalent to "anti-Semitism", "racism", etc. If you want to argue "racism isn't bad but the effects of racism are", then there's not much point dissecting your distinctions.

Anyway, one reason that boycotters aren't "thought police" is they have no monopoly on the power of the boycott! Theoretically, the nation's gay-marriage opponents could have rallied to Eich's cause. (Although Mozilla itself would be perfectly free to ignore them, just as Chik-Fil-A ignored all of its protestors.)

Ideas along those lines have been brought up as though they constitute a reductio ad absurdum ("To be consistent, you have to be okay with someone being pressured out of their job for pro-gay-rights speech!"), but as gmalivuk said, there's no inconsistency in play, and as avadacoowl said, these political ideas don't appear out of nowhere out of sheer whims.

Part of me wonders if the reason some conservatives consider some pro-gay-rights actions like these to be "Orwellian" is that they know they're losing the culture war, to the point that a feasible counterattack is a pipe dream. Of course, just about all the posters here aren't anti-gay-marriage, so that doesn't apply to this specific board.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:12 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be).


If I'm reading that correctly, and the anyone in question is LGBT employees, then you may want to check your notes.


I bolded the relevant portion for you.

azaethral wrote:
For a third, firing someone for supporting gay rights, for example, is bad because homophobia is bad, not because firing people for their political actions is categorically wrong.


Correction, the effects of homophobia are bad. However, fear and suspicion of the unfamiliar in and of itself is natural and universal. If you could somehow entirely do away with the sentiment of unease at things which are unfamiliar, you'd be doing away with the ability to learn to appreciate the same things, tolerance would be meaningless, and you'd be able to justify supporting terrorists simply for being terrorists. Hardcore phobias are nothing more than extreme forms of the same sort of unease.


So because bigotry is universal, it's okay? What are you trying to say? Just because something happens doesn't mean we have to accept it. Doesn't mean the biggest applause should go to people who reformed their bigotries. Congratulations, they get a gold star for not being hateful anymore? Do I get two because I never was a homophobe?

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:15 pm UTC

I really wonder how much of this boils down to that annoying underlying Internet belief that all dissent is bullying and all bullying is wrong. The whole "we were all bullied as kids, so we're now going to accept everyone no matter what."

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:26 pm UTC

You're right, actually. Your position is that people you don't like can lose their livelihood on a political whim. That's exactly the opposite of you yourself being in that position, which would be abominable, totally against all the laws of nature and the good ordering of society.

How....how bad are you at reading that you make this claim even when you respond to me saying "for example what if I was the one being boycotted" two paragraphs down?

Your position sets up two classes of people with two sets of rights, and the world is placed into one class or another based on your personal preferences. If that bothers you, stop arguing for it.

No, it sets up one class of people with one set of rights -- where they spend their money, and what they're willing to do for money.


Read the fucking thread. Either answer the objections to this fallacy, or stop committing it.

You keep calling it a fallacy, and yet your description of how it is a fallacy is usually to just repeat it.


First of all, the suggestion that lawfully engaging in an act of political advocacy by supporting a campaign that he, for whatever reason, believes in, is morally equivalent to killing babies is so off the mark,

Fine, suppose CEO Z likes clubbing baby seals. It doesn't really matter -- you're not going to get me to agree that supporting a campaign to remove basic human rights is morally good, or even neutral. You're not even claiming, as Brace and T-Form were able to, that it could be a tactical measure to ensure that rights are eventually recieved for all groups.


The right to support your political views is one that everyone has, and which everyone must support, or else give up.

And he still has exactly the same access to that speech as he did when he first made it. Viewing this as Eich being silenced is the fallacy, as he's lost none of the means he used to make that statement.

According to you, the reason why his speech must be unassailable is that he didn't make it in his capacity as a representative of Mozilla -- that means you're also arguing that removing him from Mozilla does not prevent him from making the same statement. It's ludicrous to argue that he's being "silenced" by removing a bullhorn you claim he would never use.

If you claim the right to engage in the boycott, then you are claiming the right to advocate for your political positions, and your chosen approach is to try to prevent other people from engaging in political advocacy.

Nope. That's a totally baseless interpretation. No one who participated in the boycott could reasonably have thought that Eich would no longer be able to vote or donate once removed.

What they thought, and what has, you know, actually happened, is that people using the product are no longer having their money go toward a cause and a person they abhor.

Therefore you are admitting that you do not believe in civil rights except for those you deem acceptable - which is exactly what you correctly accuse Eich of doing.

Wow.


The right to murder is not one that anyone claims is held generally, or should be held generally, and it's not one that most people claim for themselves. The comparison fails, and your argument has completely shit the bed in the first sentence.

Well, you raise the whole "abortion rights" thing in the next paragraph, so I could make the point that, yes, the right to kill babies is one that is claimed generally, but instead I'll just move onto what it was actually an analogy for...

(WTF??? A boycott? Could you not call 911 and get the police in on the baby-killing CEO? Maybe make the calls to end the boycott afterwards? End of digression)

Hmmm, I wonder who legally uses dronestrikes that kill children...and how much ability I have to call the police on him.

It's almost like, holy shit wow, I used that example to point to a real-world issue where a boycott (or more accurately, voting against someone) is about all the real opportunity for removing this person that I have.

And if I were to be in line to be a CEO, this would be well known, and in the world you're constructing, I could not both engage publicly in supporting women's rights to choice and also indulge any hope of taking a leadership role in a company like Mozilla. Is this really what you want to convey to kids today?

That the price of holding strong personal convictions is that not everyone will line up behind you and feel free to give you money? Yeah.

It means they actually f***ing believe in what they do, and don't just do it because it's convenient.

Meanwhile, society endeavors to make it convenient to be a good person.

Did you miss the distinction between actions taken as CEO and personal beliefs of the holder of that office?

No no, I got the distinction, I just hoped that, in trying to attack me, you'd actually notice the contradictory claim that you're making: that Eich is innocent because he didn't use his post for speech, but that he should be able to use his post for speech and that removing him from that post is silencing him. You are almost literally trying to have your cake and eat it too.

If you missed the discussion of the compatibility of your right to buy the products that you wish and the principle that it is evil to attempt to use force to compel someone's beliefs, you know what to do.

I read it, but the constant contradictory positions that you hold to defend it have been amply dismantled by other's posting in the thread, I think.

This is an attack? The guy can't support his views. That's embarrassing. Or at least, I do him the honor of assuming he's capable of shame. Do you not think he is?

Given the pottymouth on this guy, I think it's a fair handle for him.

I'm not the one who tried to use tone policing to shut anyone down. I'm merely pointing out that the guy's claim (that you are just this nice, friendly little lovebug) was without merit.

By all means, go on attacking everyone in the thread. That's between you and the mods, I have no reason to stop you.

jsharpminor wrote:Let's not. You are entirely missing the point. Eich is being held accountable here not for his actions (murdering babies) or even for his donations (prop 8) but for his viewpoints.

Bull. He's being held accountable for giving material support to a campaign to remove human rights. Not even merely going around with a bullhorn, he gave direct material support.

who cares what the views are of the leader of a software company? The answer is clear: Nobody cares, unless his views happen to be the wrong ones. Then suddenly everyone cares.

...duh. That's always been true, since I would think around the nineteenth century, when the views of the corporation leaders became both publically knowable and relevant. "Bad publicity" has been a concern of top business leadership for ages, I can't figure out why you seem to think it was created by the PC crowd.

Pfhorrest wrote:People are saying that OKCupid setting out specifically to get Eich fired for his opinions was a not-nice thing to do, and that if Mozilla actually fired Eich because a bunch of people lead on by OKCupid demanded it, that would also have been a not nice thing to do (and should maybe not be a legal thing to do, according to some people).

What OKCupid did -- arguably slimy, sure.

What Mozilla did -- as absolutely within its remit as promoting him in the first place. Choosing a CEO is as much the board's speech as Eich donating to whoever he wants. Mozilla's leadership spoke that they are more interested in popularity than principles, I'm not arguing that, and sure, that makes them come off slimy, but if you want to say they are at moral fault, then they were at moral fault for ignoring their employees and hiring a guy as their representative to the world based on just his skills rather than whether he fit the company's principles. They're failure is they were too lazy to do a thorough vetting.

A vetting that is pretty gotdamn standard, and if anything, usually acts in the other direction (i.e., straight WASPs).

Is it maybe unfortunate that CEOs are the representatives of their company, and are expected to behave as such? Maybe so. That's what happens when you give most of the company's money and power to one person and ask them to lead you, in a society that deems that money is as much speech as writing a novel espousing the same views, or otherwise going around making sure everyone knows your views.

If it is in some way moral for someone to be allowed to use their money to encourage others to share their voice, then it is just as moral for someone else to use their money to encourage others to not share the first person's voice by giving the first person more money. It may be sad that someone lost their job for their oh-so-earnestly-held beliefs, but that's the cost of equating money with speech -- it gets treated as speech.

You can't have it both ways.
Last edited by KrytenKoro on Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:41 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:27 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:
azaethral wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be).


If I'm reading that correctly, and the anyone in question is LGBT employees, then you may want to check your notes.


I bolded the relevant portion for you.


I realize that, but it doesn't change my point. He worded his comment to speak for a whole group of people, many of whom would strongly disagree with his phrasing.

azaethral wrote:Correction, the effects of homophobia are bad. However, fear and suspicion of the unfamiliar in and of itself is natural and universal. If you could somehow entirely do away with the sentiment of unease at things which are unfamiliar, you'd be doing away with the ability to learn to appreciate the same things, tolerance would be meaningless, and you'd be able to justify supporting terrorists simply for being terrorists. Hardcore phobias are nothing more than extreme forms of the same sort of unease.


So because bigotry is universal, it's okay? What are you trying to say? Just because something happens doesn't mean we have to accept it. Doesn't mean the biggest applause should go to people who reformed their bigotries. Congratulations, they get a gold star for not being hateful anymore? Do I get two because I never was a homophobe?


No, you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that the underlying causes that lead to bigotry are universal, not that bigotry itself is universal. The cure to bigotry is separating the bigotry from its more innate roots. Not doing so will inevitably lead to subjective condemnations of people who are completely normal. But to clarify, I agree with you, there's every reason to reject bigotry for what it is.
Last edited by azaethral on Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:43 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:42 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:
azaethral wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be).


If I'm reading that correctly, and the anyone in question is LGBT employees, then you may want to check your notes.


I bolded the relevant portion for you.


I realize that, but it doesn't change my point.

azaethral wrote:Correction, the effects of homophobia are bad. However, fear and suspicion of the unfamiliar in and of itself is natural and universal. If you could somehow entirely do away with the sentiment of unease at things which are unfamiliar, you'd be doing away with the ability to learn to appreciate the same things, tolerance would be meaningless, and you'd be able to justify supporting terrorists simply for being terrorists. Hardcore phobias are nothing more than extreme forms of the same sort of unease.


So because bigotry is universal, it's okay? What are you trying to say? Just because something happens doesn't mean we have to accept it. Doesn't mean the biggest applause should go to people who reformed their bigotries. Congratulations, they get a gold star for not being hateful anymore? Do I get two because I never was a homophobe?


No, you misunderstand my point. I'm saying that the underlying causes that lead to bigotry are universal, not that bigotry itself is universal. The cure to bigotry is separating the bigotry from its more innate roots. Not doing so it will inevitably lead to subjective condemnations of people who are completely normal. But to clarify, I agree with you, there's every reason to reject bigotry for what it is.


But the intent behind bigotry, the reasons why some is bigoted are truly irrelevant. It is not the oppressed individuals' responsibility to to determine whether someone is sincerely hateful, ignorant, confused, whatever. It is their right to yell at their oppressors no matter the reason for the oppression. Especially in the world we live in today, where the answers against bigotry, against ignorance, are so widely available. Fear is not an excuse, and nor is the normalcy of fear.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:52 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:But the intent behind bigotry, the reasons why some is bigoted are truly irrelevant. It is not the oppressed individuals' responsibility to to determine whether someone is sincerely hateful, ignorant, confused, whatever. It is their right to yell at their oppressors no matter the reason for the oppression. Especially in the world we live in today, where the answers against bigotry, against ignorance, are so widely available. Fear is not an excuse, and nor is the normalcy of fear.


Right, but that's when the devil is in the details. If you're complaining about bigotry, you're either complaining about how you're being treated (in which case you're not passing judgement about the person you think is being a bigot), or you have a sense of what it means not to be bigoted (in which case you have to put fair and sincere thought into what it means to be bigoted and up to what point it is normal). Transference discrimination is considered just as bad as any other form of bigotry.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:55 pm UTC

jsharpminor wrote:that you will lose your livelihood on a political whim.

I thought that is what the golden parachutes are for, at least officially. He probably gets plenty of money to sustain himself until his next job, CEO positions aren't necessarily meant to last.
Weeks wrote:If you fire Brendan Eich you are literally opening the doors for fascism. Fascists. McCarthyists.

I call the bluff.
jpk wrote:If Eich's personal views were so incompatible with their mission, why would the board have considered him for the position in the first place, and why would they have made him an offer? And why would they have asked him to stay on, in some similar position, as they claimed to have done, or even claim to have asked him to stay on, which is more likely? And how did the company that he founded in the first place end up being so completely opposed to his ideals that they, um, asked him to take the helm and lead them into the future? Wait, what? I think I missed something.

Ah, you finally seem to be getting the point: How can we trust Mozilla's claim of being pro-equality if they have such a CEO. As this seems difficult it seems reasonable to stop supporting them. It also seems reasonable to call them out for it and catch attention to this apparently misleading claim. They acted apologetically though (unlike Eich) so it seems fine now I guess.
jpk wrote:And if I were to be in line to be a CEO, this would be well known, and in the world you're constructing, I could not both engage publicly in supporting women's rights to choice and also indulge any hope of taking a leadership role in a company like Mozilla. Is this really what you want to convey to kids today?

I think it has already been mentioned several times that the problem was a large discrepancy with the claimed views of Mozilla and the (past) actions of the CEO. So no, it would not be a problem if a womens rights supporter was to be the CEO of a pro-equality company like Mozilla. It might be a problem if your ambitions were to be CEO of some Qatari oil firm, though.
jpk wrote:If you missed the discussion of the compatibility of your right to buy the products that you wish and the principle that it is evil to attempt to use force to compel someone's beliefs, you know what to do. (RTFT!) If you haven't got hold of the notion that there's a difference between buying a company's product and making a donation to its CEO, do it again. Twice. (hint: "Mozilla is not a bake sale")

It's a donation based non-profit, so it is kind of similar to a bake sale. Except for the fact that the product and donations are more separated. And yes, PR is very important for donations based companies. Who is going to donate to a company that is known to use it to oppose human rights? Oh, wait...
jpk wrote:That's exactly what I said - it doesn't include all people. The position you're defending is that it is right and proper to divide the world into classes and assign rights to them, and to arrogate to yourself the privilege of determining who gets what rights depending on the content of the views they want to express. That's not a position that you like to have stated so plainly, but it's the position you're defending. You think that KrytenKoro (for example) has a right and should have to take a certain political action, but Brendan Eich should not have the right to take a similar political action, and the difference is that you agree with the one and you don't agree with the other.

It has been stated many times in this thread that the relevant difference (relevant for most of the people arguing this position) is that Eich is a representative of a company with different ideals. It has also been mentioned quite often in this thread that another major difference is that one is a donation, while the other is speech or text. So this is very much a strawman and it is difficult to construe it as anything but deliberate.

PS I must admit I'm not sure about KrytenKoro

EDIT: Ninja'd on several points

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 2:57 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:But the intent behind bigotry, the reasons why some is bigoted are truly irrelevant. It is not the oppressed individuals' responsibility to to determine whether someone is sincerely hateful, ignorant, confused, whatever. It is their right to yell at their oppressors no matter the reason for the oppression. Especially in the world we live in today, where the answers against bigotry, against ignorance, are so widely available. Fear is not an excuse, and nor is the normalcy of fear.


Right, but that's when the devil is in the details. If you're complaining about bigotry, you're either complaining about how you're being treated (in which case you're not passing judgement about the person you think is being a bigot), or you have a sense of what it means not to be bigoted (in which case you have to put fair and sincere thought into what it means to be bigoted and up to what point it is normal). Transference discrimination is considered just as bad as any other form of bigotry.


What is transference discrimination?

I'm pretty sure it's not an either/or like you put it. If someone is being oppressed, they're likely passing judgment about the oppressor no matter what, and they're justified to do so. To paragraph a previous post, if someone steps on my foot and hurts me, I'm allowed to be pissed at them even if it was an accident. (And in the actual discrimination we're talking about, it definitely was not an accident. These people, for whatever misguided reason, think it's okay to step on foots.)

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:04 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:What is transference discrimination?


When someone tries to "make up for" discrimination by discriminating against some "non-marginalized" group that they're not a part of. Kind of like what Obama does all the time towards other countries.

I'm pretty sure it's not an either/or like you put it. If someone is being oppressed, they're likely passing judgment about the oppressor no matter what, and they're justified to do so. To paragraph a previous post, if someone steps on my foot and hurts me, I'm allowed to be pissed at them even if it was an accident. (And in the actual discrimination we're talking about, it definitely was not an accident. These people, for whatever misguided reason, think it's okay to step on foots.)


Being pissed at someone isn't the same as judging someone. You haven't decided that they're a horrible person not worthy of respect. If someone is passing judgement solely on the basis of having been oppressed, then they are not justified in their judgement.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:08 pm UTC

azaethral wrote:
avocadoowl wrote:What is transference discrimination?


When someone tries to "make up for" discrimination by discriminating against some "non-marginalized" group that they're not a part of. Kind of like what Obama does all the time towards other countries.


I need examples. Though, if this is basically "reverse discrimination" BS, then you can save your time.

azaethral wrote:
I'm pretty sure it's not an either/or like you put it. If someone is being oppressed, they're likely passing judgment about the oppressor no matter what, and they're justified to do so. To paragraph a previous post, if someone steps on my foot and hurts me, I'm allowed to be pissed at them even if it was an accident. (And in the actual discrimination we're talking about, it definitely was not an accident. These people, for whatever misguided reason, think it's okay to step on foots.)


Being pissed at someone isn't the same as judging someone. You haven't decided that they're a horrible person not worthy of respect. If someone is passing judgement solely on the basis of having been oppressed, then they are not justified in their judgement.


So person A isn't allowed to judge person B because B believes A shouldn't drink at the same water fountain, shouldn't be allowed to marry their partner? Do the reasons why B believes that really matter that much? If someone believes I am not a fully a person like they are, I will believe they are quite horrible and ignorant.

azaethral
Posts: 31
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 6:22 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby azaethral » Tue Apr 29, 2014 3:18 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:
azaethral wrote:When someone tries to "make up for" discrimination by discriminating against some "non-marginalized" group that they're not a part of. Kind of like what Obama does all the time towards other countries.


I need examples. Though, if this is basically "reverse discrimination" BS, then you can save your time.


I could cite psych textbooks, but it'll still probably come across sounding like reverse discrimination.

azaethral wrote:So person A isn't allowed to judge person B because B believes A shouldn't drink at the same water fountain, shouldn't be allowed to marry their partner? Do the reasons why B believes that really matter that much? If someone believes I am not a fully a person like they are, I will believe they are quite horrible and ignorant.


Ok, but at that point, how do you already have an accurate and well-formed idea of what they believe? It wouldn't happen if you hadn't already thought through what you'd considered normal distancing. That was my point B. EDIT: but you were right earlier, that does mean that it's not an either/or, it can be a mixture of the two.

User avatar
yanfan388
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2014 8:55 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby yanfan388 » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:57 pm UTC

PM 2Ring wrote:As for the former poster known as bonsaipark, I don't think he was a troll, but he might be an undiagnosed diabetic - that can make people grumpy &/or paranoid, and impair logical thought & discourse.

was bonsai here? the record guy?

if he got on your case, my guess is he didn't like the discussion. it is not very nice and he didn't like fools.

but he's probably not the same guy. he was old when i heard about him so he's probably 70 or 80 by now. i'll have to search this forum though. it would be cool if he's still around. very radical and anti-censorship, which we appreciated.

hey, bonsai! you still reading this?
Last edited by yanfan388 on Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:03 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Apr 29, 2014 4:59 pm UTC

jpk wrote: You think that KrytenKoro (for example) has a right and should have to take a certain political action, but Brendan Eich should not have the right to take a similar political action, and the difference is that you agree with the one and you don't agree with the other.

At least as far as I've seen, this is not true. People are saying Eich shouldn't morally have taken that action, because it's an evil action, but no one is saying he shouldn't have the ability to take that action, and my own first post was about outlining how Eich's ability to take that action isn't even being affected -- in fact, no one's "ability" to make speech was affected, all that happened was the public saying to Mozilla, "if you say X, we will say Y", and Mozilla responding with "well we don't want you to say Y, so we will choose to say Z". No one enacted a law forbidding Mozilla from promoting Eich, no one asked for it to be written into Mozilla or public rulings that people like Eich cannot be promoted. All that happened is that people who disagree with X took an organized stand to say "if you say that bigots are the face of your company, we will try not to purchase your goods".

Was the boycott influential? Sure, but being influential isn't the same as forcing someone to do something. That way lies madness. Mozilla, at all times, just like any other company, had the choice to say "fuck the boycotters, we like Eich". They chose not to. That's freedom. Deal with it.

PinkShinyRose wrote:PS I must admit I'm not sure about KrytenKoro

I'm not clear what we're not sure about me, can you clarify?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

avocadoowl
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2014 1:05 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby avocadoowl » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:04 pm UTC

yanfan388 wrote:
PM 2Ring wrote:As for the former poster known as bonsaipark, I don't think he was a troll, but he might be an undiagnosed diabetic - that can make people grumpy &/or paranoid, and impair logical thought & discourse.

was bonsai here? the record guy?

if he got on your case, my guess is he didn't like the discussion. it is not very nice and he didn't like fools.

but he's probably not the same guy. he was old when i heard about him so he's probably 70 or 80 by now. i'll have to search this forum though. it would be cool if he's still around. very radical and anti-censorship, which we appreciated.

hey, bonsai! you still reading this?


He did say he was in his sixties. Pretty sure he got banned, though.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:10 pm UTC

Did he say he was in his sixties, or that he had passed 60?

It probably was the same guy; he mentioned being in the music business.

He could have potentially been a cool addition to our community here, but unfortunately had a bad start that only got worse, and he essentially asked to be banned, so eventually Belial went ahead and obliged.

Kindof a shame, really. If he hadn't demanded to cut all connection with the forum, people probably would have been willing to forgive and forget a rocky start if the argument in this thread had died down. There are definitely other regular posters who started out from a pretty adversarial perspective but eventually got a feel for how we interact here and are now full members of the community.
Last edited by gmalivuk on Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:15 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26254
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby SecondTalon » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:12 pm UTC

yanfan388 wrote:hey, bonsai! you still reading this?

Bonsai was banned by Belial after he requested as much.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
Weeks
Hey Baby, wanna make a fortnight?
Posts: 1997
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 12:41 am UTC
Location: Ciudad de Panamá, Panamá

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby Weeks » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:14 pm UTC

Oh, right, that's why he was so paranoid about his e-mail, he's an ArtistTM.
NieXS wrote:Oh god that smiley ruined it.
suffer-cait wrote:One day I'm gun a go visit weeks and discover they're just a computer in a trashcan at an ice cream shop.
Mutex wrote:Enjoy the shoe!

User avatar
orthogon
Posts: 2985
Joined: Thu May 17, 2012 7:52 am UTC
Location: The Airy 1830 ellipsoid

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby orthogon » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:18 pm UTC

avocadoowl wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:The problem with the first view isn't that it's wront but that it completely misses the point. For one thing, we're not denying employers the right to fire anyone for any reason (though some classes are protected and more probably should be). For another, firing someone isn't a thing that happened. For a third, firing someone for supporting gay rights, for example, is bad because homophobia is bad, not because firing people for their political actions is categorically wrong.

That third thing, I believe, is the most important distinction that some people seem unable to get through their pretty little heads.


It really makes me question the true politics and beliefs of people in this thread. If they can't understand that ideas of equality don't change on a whim, and are actually pretty logically consistent, then I don't even know.

But this raises the question of why, if the principles are so consistent and straightforward, the idea of gay marriage was (as has been mentioned already) pretty much unthinkable a couple of decades ago, and is still opposed by intelligent people like Eich. Something seems to have changed.

It seems to me that the possibilities are either (1) that the principles don't follow quite as straightforwardly from the commonly held axioms, so that it has taken time to persuade society at large of the logic, or (2) that the axioms themselves have in fact changed over time and are still not universally agreed.

I suspect there's a bit of both, but I'm pretty sure that the reason threads like this go on for ever is mostly to do with differences in axioms. Crucial axioms in this case are (1) whether homosexuality is an inherent characteristic like ethicity or disability, in which case the principles of equality apply, or a chosen behaviour like surfing, in which case rights are not automatically conferred by the principles of equality (i.e. you have a right to bring a wheelchair onto an underground train at rush hour, but not a surfboard); (2) whether marriage is something to which everyone has an equal right, or whether it is in some way by definition a thing between a man and a woman; this "definition" may or may not have a religious underpinning; (3) whether Human Rights are in fact a thing: in the UK there is a reasonably popular movement wanting to repeal the legislation enacting the European Convention on Human Rights since it occasionally forces judicial decisions that seem wrong to some people, such as requiring prisoners to be allowed to vote*

I guess that over time society's consensus on these have changed, and the speed of the change might be a result of a virtuous circle; the more acceptance of homosexuality there is, the more gay people are likely to be open about their sexuality, and the more aware other members of society are likely to be of them. People have therefore been able to see with their own eyes that gay people do indeed just seem to be that way naturally; that there are in fact many more gay people than they had thought, and that bringing it out into the open has not, in fact, brought about biblical plagues and the like. Nevertheless, if the basis for your definition of marriage is a religious one, it is much harder to change that view.

In the UK we have had Civil Partnerships for a few years now. That was either a good compromise or a fudge, depending how you look at it. It gave CPed gay couples all the same rights as married straight couples, so addressed the main equality issues; meanwhile anti-gay-marriage types could take some comfort from the fact that it wasn't called a marriage. But from earlier this month we now have gay marriages too, which sends a strange message. It suggests that CPs weren't the real deal after all and CPed couples now have to decide whether to get married as well. (I've been going around using the word "married" to describe my CPed friends, as a way of showing that as far as I was concerned it was the same thing; I guess now I'll have to stop doing that in the interest of accuracy. Several of seem to be planning to get married anyway.) Those opposed to gay marriage must feel like they've been duped - they were sold the CP thing as a compromise but now it seems to have been a stepping stone from which it was easy to get to legalising marriage.

Incidentally, it doesn't make any difference to me whether homosexuality is an innate thing or a "lifestyle choice"; people should be free to have consenting sex with and get married to whoever they like either way. But I think it affects the argument by altering whether its a type of person or a behaviour that is being used to, say, discriminate. As a comparison, there was a long debate in the UK as to whether people should be protected on the grounds of religion, since this was arguably a choice. (It went on so long that I can't remember the outcome).

tl;dr I don't think this stuff is necessarily as straightforward as all that; the process of refining the ideas of rights that's been going on at least since John Stuart Mill, and this long thread is just a part of it.

(*) I lean towards the belief that prisoners should have the right to vote, since there may be a legitimate argument that the crime for which they were imprisoned should in fact be a crime, and they should be able to elect someone able to represent that view, otherwise imprisonment could be used as a means of suppressing political dissent.
xtifr wrote:... and orthogon merely sounds undecided.

User avatar
PinkShinyRose
Posts: 833
Joined: Mon Nov 05, 2012 6:54 pm UTC
Location: the Netherlands

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby PinkShinyRose » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:22 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
PinkShinyRose wrote:PS I must admit I'm not sure about KrytenKoro

I'm not clear what we're not sure about me, can you clarify?

Whether you're a representative of an organisation that ever donated or otherwise acted against said organization's principles.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Apr 29, 2014 5:40 pm UTC

It seems to me that the possibilities are either (1) that the principles don't follow quite as straightforwardly from the commonly held axioms, so that it has taken time to persuade society at large of the logic, or (2) that the axioms themselves have in fact changed over time and are still not universally agreed.


I don't think it's that the logic has changed, or that the axioms have changed, at least as I understand what you mean by axioms.

It's essentially because humans are instinctively chauvinistic -- same reason you get so many BS dystopia stories about how we can't aim to fix a problem, because you'll lose something "innately human", or in general, the "No True Irishman" fallacy.

Humans have a hard time accepting the personhood of anyone but themselves -- asking for altruism is, as we've seen with objectivism and Ayn Rand and all that, already a big ask. Asking for the full rationality of egalitarianism is asking for what a person generally doesn't want to give -- you have to convince them that it is correct for them to no longer have all the unjust benefits they have come to expect, and to make sacrifices for others.

Before globalization and the internet, it was much, much easier to simply ignore or drown out those voices, to say that the black person was "an animal" or that the woman was "a tool for making babies", that queers were "an unnatural abomination", and so on. You can easily find a group where those minorities are very much minorities, and so get the majority to agree with you that, yeah, those other guys don't count, so it's okay to rig the system to work for you only.

Even if egalitarianism has always been fairly simple and logical, it hasn't been until recently that it was difficult to avoid that fact. Humans ain't rational, most people suck, etc.

As for this whole Eich thing, the simple fact is that if money is speech, then money is speech. Sure, we can draw lines about whether, as a CEO, it's more efficient or "right" to go after him, but the really straightforward thing is that if Eich's ability to donate money to a cause is defended as speech, then the public's ability to not spend money that will wind its way towards Eich must also be defended as speech -- if anything can be said to be morally wrong about the boycott, it would have to be something like, if it's possible that the claims were false and Eich didn't make the donation, or that the boycott hurts funding for its supposed cause more than it hurt funding for the cause against it, or if the money saved through the boycott was used to bribe Congress to make laws clamping down on free speech.

If I know that the paperyboy used his wages to pay my neighbor to play loud music all night long cause he hates me, I am absolutely within my rights to cancel my subscription, and the only thing that could be "bad" about that is if I knew that my paper subscription also went towards paying my neighbor even more to be quiet, so in the long run I was shooting myself in the foot. And even then, that's me reaping the consequences of my speech. It's a tactical error, at most, not a moral one. Big. Fucking. Whoop.

If boycotting Eich ends up hurting the LGBT cause in the grand scheme of things, that's unfortunate, but doesn't mean the boycotters were "immoral" to have boycotted, unless the organizers somehow knew that would happen and deliberately misled people. I don't think anyone has raised that claim have they? I know they've claimed the boycotters were stupid, because Eich should have kept his job and gone without punishment so he could remain in the spotlight, somehow(?), but I don't think they ever claimed the boycotters were hoping to hold back LGBT rights by doing so.

Whether you're a representative of an organisation that ever donated or otherwise acted against said organization's principles.

At most, I've run a few fandom wikis, but that's always been because I've been fairly dogmatic at adhering to the policies of the wiki, and in fact, sought my own banning if I ever in a moment transgressed them. Repeatedly, even, forcing myself to adhere to the wikis policies for remedial probation even if I usually let other vandals away with a warning.

Do it on forums, too. I absolutely believe that power or freedom of speech come with responsibility, and adhere to that.

So, jpk and jsharpminor's allegations that I want "rules for them but not for me" is not only almost willfully ignorant of what I actually posted, but contextually hilarious.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:07 pm UTC

jpk wrote:Well, the guy was fired from his position as a result of your action, and that was the stated purpose of the action you took. So in my book, you're kind of stuck with that one. Are you going back to saying "nobody got fired" and "nobody meant to get anyone fired"? If so, we can have a round of our favorite singalong. Go read the fucking thread. Or are you admitting that your side's tactics were a total screwup? I mean, you achieved your objective and got the guy fired, but you still failed to get what you really wanted, since you forgot that CEOs get paid for getting fired. Yeah, in that sense, he didn't lose any livelihood - instead, Mozilla lost a shit ton of money, and the Mozilla community lost all of the developer time that money could have bought. But it wasn't for lack of effort on your part, was it?


It depends what you think the objective of the boycott was. If, as you have stated, the goal was to ruin Eich's life, then, sure, total failure and lots of collateral damage. On the other hand, if the goal was to stop Mozilla from being represented by someone who believed that gay people shouldn't be allowed to marry, then it seems pretty successful to me, though with some collateral damage (mostly to Eich)...

Either seems to be a reasonable interpretation of the stated aim - to stop Eich being CEO of Mozilla

***

Something the people claiming that the message of the boycott is "if you supported Prop 8, we will destroy you" have to explain is that, despite the list of donors having been public for two years, including many people who gave as much as or more than Eich, and many tech companies having had more contributed by their employees than Mozilla, it's Eich at Mozilla that's been the target of a boycott, and only immediately after becoming CEO. I'm quite happy to believe that there are people who would be quite happy to ruin the lives of everyone on that list of donors, but they aren't the people who made this boycott a success - it's the majority of boycotters who do see a difference between CTO and CEO who matter - believing otherwise falls into the same category as believing that Eich wants all gays to be sterilised because some of the people who voted for Prop 8 do.

jpk wrote:
rmsgrey wrote:Or is it, in fact, the case that the job of CEO of a company that officially supports gay marriage, equal rights and inclusiveness is somehow different from the job of postman, or street sweeper, or even CTO?


The more you people cling to this, the more it seems like rationalization to me. Particularly since a few months ago, many of you were happily calling for Orson Scott Card to be cast into the pit of ever-burning flame for expressing in writing the views that Eich supported with a donation. You say "CEOs are different" - should we amend that to "novelists and CEOs are different?"
And what happens when you light on your next target? Will they be different too?
This smells like bullshit to me.


I must have missed the memo about OSC - though, yes (successful) novelists are rarely employees (the main distinguishing feature of a successful novelist being that they can afford to quit their day job and support themselves through writing), instead relying on members of the public choosing to support them in return for being provided entertainment. Allowing your knowledge of the artist to change how you value the art is an even more clear cut case of exercising your rights as a consumer.

And before you ask, yes, I would be less likely to give money to a beggar with a sign saying "deport all gays" than one without.

And yes, the next target will be different too - because the targets are being chosen from among people who are different. It's not a matter of sticking a pin into a list of people and then coming up with a reason why it's okay to go after them - the people being singled out are being chosen because they are valid targets - a CEO, a novelist, a professional charity fundraiser, politicians (depending on their campaign platforms - I still think Clinton's response to the Monica Lewinsky thing should have been that it was no-one else's business since he wasn't elected on a family values platform)...

When there's a plausible boycott attempt against a company based on one of its janitors, or a member of the secretarial staff, or a middle-manager, then you can start talking about how everyone's under threat and being held hostage by the whims of the mob...

Or is it only okay when people encourage other people to buy the books written by an author who they like for reasons other than the text of the books? Or do you believe that the decision to buy a book should be based solely on its text, and totally ignore any other consequences of that purchase? If so, then I disagree - and I have the Band Aid single to prove it!

The fact that buying an Orson Scott Card novel indirectly supports some unpleasant causes is something that I will now take account of next time I consider purchasing one. Should I not care what the people and companies I give money to do with that money?

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:40 pm UTC

depending on their campaign platforms - I still think Clinton's response to the Monica Lewinsky thing should have been that it was no-one else's business since he wasn't elected on a family values platform

Contrary to public recollection, the reason the US was angry at Clinton wasn't that he had an affair with a staffer, but that he tried to wield his authority to quash a sexual harassment suit by a former employee, and Monica Lewinsky was used as an example of "yes, despite what he's saying, he does diddle his employees, and then lie about it in court".

Basically, the accusation being that he lied and was obstructing justice, and Monica being proof of that. Then again, the intent behind the whole thing ended up being "impeach him 'cause he's a democrat", but yeah.

Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days prior to the 3-year statute of limitations, and sought $750,000 in damages.

The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with a private civil lawsuit.

Jones's lawyers decided to show to the court a pattern of behavior by Clinton that involved his allegedly repeatedly becoming sexually involved with state or government employees. Jones's lawyers therefore subpoenaed women they suspected Clinton had had affairs with, one of whom was Monica Lewinsky. In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Based on testimony provided by Linda Tripp, which identified the existence of a blue dress with Clinton's semen on it, Kenneth Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

rmsgrey
Posts: 3451
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1357: "Free Speech"

Postby rmsgrey » Tue Apr 29, 2014 7:47 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
depending on their campaign platforms - I still think Clinton's response to the Monica Lewinsky thing should have been that it was no-one else's business since he wasn't elected on a family values platform

Contrary to public recollection, the reason the US was angry at Clinton wasn't that he had an affair with a staffer, but that he tried to wield his authority to quash a sexual harassment suit by a former employee, and Monica Lewinsky was used as an example of "yes, despite what he's saying, he does diddle his employees, and then lie about it in court".

Basically, the accusation being that he lied and was obstructing justice, and Monica being proof of that. Then again, the intent behind the whole thing ended up being "impeach him 'cause he's a democrat", but yeah.

Jones filed a sexual harassment suit against Clinton on May 6, 1994, two days prior to the 3-year statute of limitations, and sought $750,000 in damages.

The Clinton defense team took the position that the trial should be delayed until the president was no longer in office, because the job of the president is unique and does not allow him to take time away from it to deal with a private civil lawsuit.

Jones's lawyers decided to show to the court a pattern of behavior by Clinton that involved his allegedly repeatedly becoming sexually involved with state or government employees. Jones's lawyers therefore subpoenaed women they suspected Clinton had had affairs with, one of whom was Monica Lewinsky. In his deposition for the Jones lawsuit, Clinton denied having "sexual relations" with Monica Lewinsky. Based on testimony provided by Linda Tripp, which identified the existence of a blue dress with Clinton's semen on it, Kenneth Starr concluded that this sworn testimony was false and perjurious.

Okay, that never made it into the UK reports on the whole affair...


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests