So is speaking. I see it as the difference between the exchange of ideas in an effort to influence other’s opinions, and economic attacks to cause damage for having and expressing ideas.
And the cakes they bake. I’m anti-union. Corporations should be able to fire union people at will for speaking. And organize opposition to their spouses as well. You know, cause consequences.
So, the intent of the speech matters? Its content matters?
If allowed by law, yes. And then I get to boycott the fuck out of the bigots. Whee!
He’s saying the boycott is not just speech, it’s an attempt to harm someone for speaking. Let’s say I think I should be able to punch conservatives in the face. It’s speech, right? A natural consequence of their speech is my expressing my opinion by slugging them in the jaw. Free speech!
Responding kind of at random. Let me know if I miss what you said completely:
-
It may seem a silly thing to carry around for 20 years, but Sassy was a great magazine before the boycott of its advertisers by the religious right for Sassy’s gay-sensitive articles. And, sure, it was within their rights to target the advertisers, but it doesn’t convince me of the solidity of their argument. I mean “Well, you know, gay teens have a lot of problems they have to face” “Oh, yeah? We’re boycotting Coke until you take that back” doesn’t really sway me. Frankly, if you have called for boycotts of a third party, I’m going to assume you don’t have rational arguments. You, of course, are free to do what you wish.
-
Well, I don’t know. Recently a guy tweeted that a certain feminist took herself too seriously (seriously, that was the entirety of his tweet). There was a call out to her supporters to contact his employer and get him fired. That’s not loss of freedom, no, but I’d argue that is a very real consequence.
-
You are right…ish…that there is no chance of reasonable discussion on some topics. I’m just not as sure as you are that I know what those topics are. Additionally, there might be something to be gained from watching the poor souls who do attempt to have a reasonable discussion on topics on which it is impossible to have a reasonable conversation.
-
I’m not actually arguing the slippery slope. I’m saying that, had people made the decisions you made, and disallowed conversations because they were obviously noxious to the majority, we would have foregone a lot of progress. I think that anything other than the most reluctant, slow moving, cautious disallowance of speech, and a general tolerance of allowing other people to spout whatever they want is more desirable. Racial screeds? Whatever. Genocide? Well, pushing the line, but to be honest I’m more concerned about calls of direct action against an identifiable group (that is, I think the folks on coontown are more able to kill a few black people than to commit genocide, so discussions of the former make me more nervous than the later).
I tend to judge the quality of speech by it’s content, yes.
See if you can spot the difference:
–
“I think blacks are inferior because blah blah blah blah”
“Those aren’t real reasons, and in fact, all those things aren’t true, and also, you should consider this”
“I think blacks are inferior because blah blah blah blah”
“We should stop buying Coors until he stops saying that”
As I’ve said, I support the right of people to say the later. However, I think it is the wrong thing to do, and not a good approach. I disagree with them.
Yes, I am saying that. I’m also attempting to say this: free speech is about reason, eloquence and insight influencing the minds and hearts of others and bringing them around to your point of view.
Boycotting is about amassing numbers and using the “might makes right” approach - it doesn’t matter if our ideas are good or bad, as long as we can damage you financially.
There are those who believe that their ideas must be accepted even if it requires economic force to get people to accept them. There are those who believe that ideas should stand on their merits. jsgoddess prefers force. I prefer reason.
The latter is more properly characterized as “Coors is sponsoring this guy. Coors is doing that to make money. I’m not going to reward Coors for that.”
Oh, c’mon! Don’t hide your light under a bushel! You also prefer attempts to shame and condescend!
I figured that was implied, and didn’t want to brag.
So, when Brendan Eich was made to step down due to a boycott, how was he attempting to profit from his beliefs?
People at Mozilla decided they didn’t want to be associated with someone who promoted homophobia and bigotry. They refused to work with him. Are you suggesting they should have had to?
He was fired for the boycott, due to external pressure being explicitly brought against the company. He was not fired because the folks at Mozilla disliked him, he was fired for bringing economic heat to the company.
You can drop the cute miss-phrasing of my comments now. I have never suggested they had to. I asked you how Mozilla was profiting by Eich’s beliefs. Draw the analogy between Coors profiting (by advertising) and Eich’s (misguided, wrong, bad) beliefs leading to a boycott of Mozilla.
It was not enough that we (collectively) disagreed with him. He had to be punished for his speech.
First, he wasn’t fired. He wasn’t even asked to resign.
Second, some at Mozilla were definitely unhappy with his appointment. Some?/Many? in the Mozilla Community also said “Wait. We don’t want that guy. He’s a bigot.”
There was also pressure from completely external sources.
Eich then stepped down because he thought it would impact the product/brand.
Mozilla didn’t profit by his beliefs. They would have profited if no one had taken issue (at least, we assume they thought they would have profited by it). In the same way, if Macy’s had decided to maintain ties with Donald Trump, it wouldn’t be because he’s a bigot, it would have been because they thought he would bring them money.
Businesses make decisions aimed at bringing them money. Consumers can make decisions to show that no, the business was wrong to think their acts would profit them. It isn’t about Mozilla specifically thinking Eich’s antediluvian opinions on gay marriage would benefit them; it’s about Mozilla thinking Eich himself would benefit them, and others proving that belief to be false.
Only the weak are scared of words.
So we’ve heard.
Plagiarism!
I’ve gone to reddit at least once a day for several years. Not once have I stumbled on some heinous thing that did not take effort on my part to find. I see no reason to remove anything; if I don’t like something I’ll simply not search for it.
Not sure if someone’s already posted the link here and I missed. But here it is:
How to Detox Reddit – Don’t ban hate speech on the site. Put it in super-quarantine, David Auerbach, Slate, July 14, 2015.