If by “acceptable” you mean “ought to be tolerated”, then yes. I mean, if you have a straight parent who says to the kid “I don’t approve of homosexuality, I will always be afraid you are going to hell, but you are always welcome in my home and while I am uncomfortable with your partner, I will do my best to be polite” and a gay kid whose response was to cut off all contact–despite an otherwise positive relationship–because that wasn’t enough, I’d be more sympathetic towards the parent than the kid, even though I disagree with the parent’s stance.
You seem to be equating having a business and selling a “brand” with being a member of society. If my business goes bankrupt for reasons that have nothing to do with my personal beliefs, have I been kicked out of society? Or does it just mean that I didn’t offer a product that had value to the consumer?
The wonderful thing about having opinions is that we can have as many as we want and no one has to know. A person can have as many controversial opinions as they want and still have a successful business. They just can’t expect people NOT to connect the brand they are selling with those controversial opinions. If they don’t want to be “shunned”, all they have to do is express their opinions in ways that are totally divorced from their brand. Why would a business owner have any more difficulty doing this than you or me?
You seem to think business owners should be immune from the same law of consequences that affect everyone. What, just because someone owns a business they get to piss people off without suffering any for it?
Do you think a families should have no discretion over what they will and will not tolerate in their ranks? I’m all for judging situations on case-by-case basis. A family that shuns a kid for being gay is a no good family, IMHO. But a family that shuns a kid for publicly swearing allegiance to ISIS? Call me crazy, but I think thats a family that is doing the best it can do in a very difficult situation.
It’s more lazy to think that all opinions are equally sane, reasonable, and informed. Some opinions are stupid. Some are dangerous. Society suffers when we refuse to be critical of anything. We can be tolerant of different ideas without throwing reason and rationality out of the window at the same time.
But that’s not to mean you can’t believe whatever you want. Everyone has the right to say what’s on their mind. But that’s it, as far as what we’re entitled to. If you’re entitled to say what’s on your mind, the people who have heard you are equally entitled to react in a way that either hurts your feelings or bottom line.
Being a business owner does not and SHOULD NOT shield you from the same laws of consequences that applies to everyone. If I can lose my job for saying something horrible in the public arena, why shouldn’t a business owner?
I’ve never said any of that. I’ve only said that it’s the sort of thing you should be careful about. And when we are talking about big companies, I guess I don’t really care, but if someone tries to start a small restaurant down the street from me, I’m going to need to be really offended before I’ll let the owner’s personal beliefs keep me from eating there–it’s not going to be enough that I see he has a Jesus fish on his car.
No, I’ve said, over and over again, it’s the nuclear option that should be used carefully. Not that it’s never appropriate. But that it is a very big deal and should be used reluctantly. That we should, at times, continue to love and associate with people even when they hold views we disagree with, sometimes strongly.
And I’m more sympathetic to the child. Seems like we are then allowing a number of voices to be heard. Your way there’s only the one.
How is saying “unless you believe as I believe, we have no relationship” allowing a number of voices to be heard? It’s literally saying “I won’t talk to you about anything unless you agree to agree with me”.
Because you’re narrowing the scope only to the family, while I am broadening it to the society.
You would support the parent. I would support the child. Our voices are part of society’s conversation.
Discussing what someone does or says which offends people broadens the conversation. Simply tolerating it doesn’t. It’s only when people say “This is not okay” that the conversation opens up, not when we refuse to push back against offense.
Why is the only way to say “This is not okay” to refuse to talk to someone, to have any sort of relationship?
A Jesus fish wouldn’t be enough to turn me off. But a Tea Party license plate might. A Confederate flag bumper sticker might. Overhearing the store owner talking about “those minorities ruining things” might.
I’ll avoiding eating there, and I may tell a friend why if they ask. But I won’t hold a protest rally on the sidewalk out front or call the local newspaper about my “boycott.” It’s just that if I’d rather my limited money go to someone who doesn’t piss me off. I’m not obligated to give money to people I like. So I’m especially not obligated to give money to people who get on my nerves.
To me, a “nuclear option” would be sending someone to jail or kicking them out of a neighborhood. Not patronizing a certain business is pretty small potatoes in comparison. I think most people know how to distinguish a “boycottable” offense from something petty and harmless. And most business owners know how to keep their private lives private so that “boycottable offenses” stay hidden. Any number of businesses I patronize may be run by folks who harbor ideas I find disdainful. But as long as they don’t advertise those ideas along with the products they sell, I don’t care.
Shunning a family member isn’t analogous to “shunning” a business. For one thing, spouses have a duty to stay with each other and parents have a duty to stay with their children. People do not have any such duty to their neighbors and local businesses. I can be 100% respectful of my neighbor and still decline his offer to mow my lawn or sell me a vacuum cleaner. I’m not obligated to give him business just because he’s my neighbor.
It’s not the only way, but if someone chooses that as their way, that’s their choice. Because it’s their relationship, not mine. I might say I wouldn’t make the same choice. I might even say I think their choice is stupid. But I’m not going to act like having the choice is invalid, no matter how petty the offense might be.
And, to be clear, I think “I will try to be polite but you are going to hell” is not a petty offense at all.
To quote myself, I liken the situation to what I would experience in my marriage if someone said, “I love you but interracial relationships are a sin, so I think you’re going to hell. I’ll try to be polite to your husband, though.”
Fuck NO, that person would not get the chance to try to be polite to my husband. That person can fuck off. I would never ask my husband to be in the presence of someone like that, and I wouldn’t choose it for myself. My husband is the person I chose and the person I choose.
Rather like Howard Dixon, the black man who has been the cook at the Sigma Alpha Epsilon house at Oklahome University for the past 10 years – he’s the only person actually out of a job over this controversy, since the frat house he worked at was closed.
But now we have technology to do the opposite of boycotts, support someone. There is an online crowdfunding website (life.indiegogo.com/fundraisers/howard) where people can contribute money to help support him until he can find a new job. So far, they have raised $30,000 toward their $50,000 goal.
*And it’s not true that Montgomery bus drivers “didn’t have anything to do with the seating policy”. These drivers (all white, by the way) were the enforcers of this policy. They could easily have just ‘neglected’ to enforce without much notice. But they enforced it, some of them quite eagerly (like the driver who did Rosa Parks).
It’s not. But it sure is an effective way of letting someone know they’ve crossed a line, especially when all the talking in the world hasn’t done anything.
And I think it’s important to note that not spending time with someone doesn’t have to be a message at all. It can be that you just do not fucking want to spend time with that person and would rather eat your own feet.
But this thread is about throwing people out of a community–in this case, an academic community–because of their beliefs. And, as I’ve said a million times, I think it’s justified in this case. I just think it should be treated as an extreme reaction to an extreme provocation. Because it does limit free speech, even if it doesn’t violate the first amendment.
I never said it was a petty offense. I was trying to make the parents pretty fucking horrible, because there’s no point in arguing about the extremes–the extremes are obvious.
I don’t see how we are on even on different pages on this. I’m not “invalidating” their choice. I’m saying I think that, as a rule, it should be a last resort, not a first one, and that society is better off if people who disagree even on Big, Emotional Issues–things they really care about–can still associate with each other.
So as a last resort? Because that’s my point. I’m not saying you should never, ever cut people off. I am saying it should not be done lightly, and it’s not *wrong *to associate with people you do disagree with.
Exactly. Ditching a relationship may be the only way to save your sanity. Not all relationships are worth fighting over.
I don’t think children have the same obligation as parents do to work on a relationship anyway. Children are not obligated to love their parents, nor are they obligated to support them through thick and thin. Perhaps if it was possible for children to freely choose who their parents were, we’d find overall improvements in the quality of parenting because parents would have more pressure to be better. But kids are not in a position to boycott their service providers without having their character questioned.
I’m confused by this. You were trying to make them horrible because the extremes are obvious? But then you said you’d support them. Sorry for being clueless.
I was trying to make them horrible so that it was clear I thought that even pretty horrible behavior doesn’t always demand shunning. I mean, if the parents were 100% supportive in every way except they weren’t comfortable using the word “husband” or something, it’d be easy to say “don’t shun them”.
And to clarify, I wouldn’t tell someone they were obligated to stay in contact with their parents or whatever. No one is. But I do think, as a general rule, exclusion and rejecting and being cut off from the people you love or the community you are part of is terrifying. The threat of it can be an extremely effective way to manipulate others. Therefore, it shouldn’t be used lightly. It especially shouldn’t be used lightly by people expressing a majority opinion, because that really does limit free speech.
This still doesn’t make sense to me. Again, you are saying that my reaction to someone’s speech limits their speech, but how does my NOT reacting not limit my speech? Someone is going to be impacted, either the person being an offensive jerkface or the person being offended. You’re trying to put the burden on the person being offended. I’m trying to put the burden on the person who is being offensive. (To be clear, I think the person being offended should have the choice of any reaction or none.)
Basically, it seems to be “Victim, control your hurt or anger lest you impact someone’s free speech.” To me, that’s something the offender should have thought of, not the victim.
And yes, it could be manipulative. If you love someone, you can be manipulated by them. Them’s the breaks.
No, I’m saying that when your reaction–especially if “you” is “the majority of society” takes the explicit form of “you are excluded from all society, even parts of it that having nothing to do with this”, it limits other’s free speech. Belonging to society is a pretty fundamental right that shouldn’t be taken from people lightly. There are other ways to react.
I feel that in a society where lots and lots of beliefs can get you excluded from the group, there’s a pretty good chance that at least one or two of those things are going to be things I believe–so my ability to express myself is limited. So I think the list of things that put you beyond the pale, that make you someone Good People Don’t Talk To, should be really fucking short. It should exist, but it should be short.