Except one side of the coin complains on twitter and maybe gets you fired from your job whereas the other side of that coin systematically removes over a hundred million dollars of research grants based on language and is literally disappearing people for their writing
but yeah, same thing. sorry someone put you through the absolute hell of saying they/them at work
> "Maybe gets you fired from your job" is someone's entire livelihood you're trivializing.
yes, the left doing that was pretty bad and I have gotten into many arguments over my left leaning friends over it. But it was largely private companies capitulating to pressure. To compare that to people being abducted and incarcerated by the government without trial or even an actual law being broken is worse.
How many of the conservatives complaining about it would support government regulations preventing people from being fired for expressing controversial viewpoints? AFAIK those complaining are the same people who support ‘at will’ employment and the liberty of religious organizations to impose more or less arbitrarily discriminatory hiring standards. So yeah, in that lax regulatory environment, your employer might decide to fire you if you (e.g.) feel the need to be an asshole to your trans colleagues.
Well for brevity I did trivialize it but I will expand:
The left side got people fired. This is objectively not as bad as getting people disappeared. You can get a new fucking job. You can’t get freedom from detention and you cannot easily return to the country (if at all)
Additionally there is the motivational factor behind both sides:
The lefts argument in policing language was to reduce harm to marginalized groups. You may not agree with it, but that is the rational.
The rights argument is to erase those marginalized groups.
These are extremely different in motivation. Asking you to respect a persons gender identity in professional contexts is far different than forcing someone to not be able to express it on federal documentation.
One side of this was “we want to create inclusive spaces that make people comfortable and if you don’t want to participate in that there is the door”. The other side is “we did not want to participate in that so go fuck yourself and we will do whatever we can to deny your right to express your identity”
“Any attempt to control speech” is an absolutist statement that is absurd in its fallacy. So I can say I can murder you? I can say you’re planning a terrorist attack? I can say you want to kill the president? Of course not. Speech is limited contextually and by law
You're still trivializing. The cancel culture would often follow the people it wanted to cancel to make it hard for them to get another job again.
Also, I'll add that the "there is the door" comment is entirely wrong. There are countless stories of open source maintainers being harassed to make language changes to their code base, master/slave, whitelist/blacklist. The harassers never offered to do the work themselves just demanded it be done for them or they'll keep harassing.
These were people matching into someone else's "safe space" to police their private language.
The government disappearing people and dismantling the country is very bad, and nothing good can be said about it. What I'm talking about are the individuals on both sides not formally in power, and their equal efforts to stifle what they see as "bad speech". It's that mentality, on both sides, that led us to where we are.
Harassment is bad. Extraordinary rendition is bad. One of them is significantly worse than the other. And the side complaining about A whilst celebrating B is significantly more hypocritical.
What about the side that complains about A and complains about B, and complains that constant polarizing rhetoric has been ratcheting up to get us from the less bad A to the very bad B?
1) Plenty of "Polarizing rhetoric" has come from the side of the current administration.
2) "Polarizing rhetoric" is not remotely a valid justification of disappearing people.
Ah yes, it is the left's fault the right is spiraling the country into despotism. Feeling a lot of "Why do you make them hit you?" energy in this thread.
Because it actually is, in no small part, the illiberal left's fault for going all out to emphasize identity instead of unity, dividing and polarizing the U.S. population.
The illiberal left must be held accountable for their role in the Democratic defeats of 2024, expelled and publicly repudiated, and then the Democratic Party can work on rebuilding trust with voters.
It is everyone who kept on the path instead of saying 'I don't care what you say I'll defend your right to say it'. If you can't allow someone else to say things you don't like you are at fault - it doesn't matter how good hou think you are.
So because a vocal minority 'cancelled' speech in private spheres for a few years, it's the fault of (all?) progressives that the right wildly overreacted and installed facism and government enforced censorship?
By this logic if one member of my family makes you feel unwelcome then its my own fault that you got the cops to beat me up?
There are a lot of people on the "right" who are horrified about how Trump is doing anything and have no clue what they can do about it.
There are evil people on both sides, always have been, always will be. It always looks like the other side is more evil than your side because you have a human bias to assume people who agree with your are not evil with a few small exceptions. Because of this bias it is always wrong to try to paint the other side worse than yours.
The important take away: power shifts, it always has and always will. Next time your side is in power how will you recognize where they are doing evil and oppose them. The first is at least something you can partially train yourself to do with great effort - I have no clue what you can usefully do about it though.
The left is loud about the hypocrisy and faults of its own. Whether that's drone striking US citizens, trading on insider info, or taking literal bribes. The left has prosecuted its own far more often than the right.
My whole point is both sides deserve the rebutes and criticism they have earned, and at this moment one side is objectively far, far worse. Which doesn't excuse faults on the left. But it certainly is not the left who has embraced facism and kleptocracy, nor has anyone except the Republican party and their voters caused this.
> There are a lot of people on the "right" who are horrified about how Trump is doing anything
Generally i think harvey weinstein should be unemployable in any position of power. if people hear about what he's done and still want to hire him, sure, they can go for it, but they'd probably appreciate knowing about him before doing that.
[1] why is this relevant? Because anyone who shoots a puppy that they considered untrainable and then brags about it in their own book is a stone-cold sociopath.
> Maybe gets you fired from your job" is someone's entire livelihood you're trivializing.
People are being shipped to a Salvadorean mega-prison for having autism awareness tattoos. Law-abiding students who write peaceful op-eds are being disappeared to a facility in Louisiana. Yes it sucks to lose your job, but it sucks a lot more to be indefinitely detained without even seeing a judge.
> "Your side" isn't any better than the other's.
Your argument reminds me of high schoolers that argue the US was just as bad as the Nazis for operating Japanese internment camps. Yes, both were wrong, but one was much, much worse.
The problem with such reflexive absolutism, as I've pointed out many times, is that you end up advocating for the speech rights of people who are advocating for genocide. I shouldn't need to point out that killing people also terminates their speech rights and that advocacy of genocide is thus an attack on free speech.
You do not have to defend the free speech rights of people who are themselves attacking free speech (and free life). In fact, it is foolish to do so.
If you don't feel bad about it you are not a defender of free speech. Eventially a line must be drawn and you have to not allow things. However it should make you uncomfortable no matter how bad thone things are.
Advocating for the end of a state is not the same as advocating for the eradication of a people.
Someone can firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is a mistake that should be corrected while still also believing that the Jewish people have every right to their own existence and freedom of religion.
If someone argued against existence of Ukraine, we'd normally understand their position as hostile to Ukrainians, and definitely one that ignores everything they want or deserve. This isn't different, except it also ignores the historical context to an absurd degree, not just the current context
> Someone can firmly believe that the existence of the state of Israel is a mistake that should be corrected while still also believing...
In theory, someone might distinguish between opposing the state of Israel and supporting Jewish rights. But in practice, that distinction tends to collapse. History shows that denying Jews a national homeland often leads to denying their safety and identity as well. Before 1948, Jews were stateless and vulnerable, culminating in the Holocaust. After Israel's founding, over 800,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries where they had lived for centuries. Efforts like the 1975 UN resolution equating Zionism with racism blurred the line between criticism of Israeli policy and rejection of Jewish nationhood. During the Second Intifada, what began as political resistance often turned into violence targeting civilians and Jewish institutions. More recently, anti-Zionist protests have featured explicitly anti-Jewish chants like "Khaybar, Khaybar ya Yahud," invoking historical violence. The Western assumption that "Free Palestine" implies peaceful self-determination doesn't reflect the goals of many movements where "freedom" often means dismantling Israel entirely and expelling Jews or allowing them to live only in a state of dhimmitude. In reality, it's nearly impossible to separate these ideas cleanly.
I bet you're thinking you're really clever with that context switch. I was actually talking about nazis, because posts above were complaining about left-wing cancel culture getting people fired from their jobs which is the sort of consequence that happened to quite a few extremely online nazis over the last decade.
Who taught you to argue like this? They didn't do you any favors.
Advocating for free speech does indeed mean defending the rights of people to say reprehensible things, including those who advocate for deeply offensive or dangerous ideas. But it's important to be clear-eyed about the historical record.
The Nazis did not rise because of an excess of free speech. During the Weimar Republic, there were hate speech laws and Nazi publications were censored or banned multiple times. Hitler himself was banned from public speaking in several German states in the 1920s. Despite that, the Nazi movement grew, driven not by open dialogue but by a mix of economic despair, nationalism, violent intimidation, and institutional weakness.
Far from championing free speech, the Nazis used paramilitary violence to silence opponents even before seizing power. Once in control, they moved quickly to eliminate all free expression, banning parties, censoring the press, imprisoning dissenters.
So if anything, the historical lesson is that censorship and suppression didn’t stop fascism, and that once authoritarians gain power, their first move is often to destroy free speech entirely.
Free speech is a super power. Strong free speech rights require defending the rights of terrible people to say terrible things. That doesn’t mean what they’re saying is good. It just means that it's easy to defend the rights of meaningless or popular speech, but your own right to truly speak your mind is only as strong as the rights of those you disagree with most. Someday, something you believe passionately might be seen as reprehensible by the majority.
I suppose one way to prevent the left from getting you fired from your job is by making yourself unhirable in the first place with these embarrassing displays.
Eh, I’ve railed quite a bit against the left. But looking back, we should have fired and deplatformed more aggressively. The social menaces who weren’t fired or arrested went on to become a plague.
Good grief man, deplatforming, chilling speech and all that is how we got into this mess to begin with. Have you learned nothing from the past 10 years?
edit: Holy mackarel, I am this close to accepting the argument that the people on 'the left' need to be treated that exact way you described just so that they can understand why 'the right' feel aggrevied. I simply cannot accept Soviet Union style 'do not employ this man' brand. I feel dirty just thinking about it as an option.
> am this close to accepting the argument that the people on 'the left' need to be treated that exact way you described
Yup, I’ve lost patience with the far left as well. This is in practice happening with e.g. nutters who openly supported Hamas, though as these things always go, the only people actually willing to do this to people go too far both in their metric and treatment. (The left, to its credit, was never deporting people for their views.)
> Have you learned nothing from the past 10 years?
Yes. I spent too much time treating everyone’s views as valid. The paradox of tolerance is real, and if someone insists on being an idiot I’m basically at the point of taking them at their word.
> cannot accept Soviet Union style 'do not employ this man' brand
It’s not. It’s do not put this person in a position of responsibility or visibility. They can make a livelihood. It just shouldn’t be one from which they do harm.
The thing is, right wingers are very likely to protest over losing jobs. In Covid times, what made the right finally start actually marching in the streets was losing their jobs. They don’t protest over most things, but threaten their livelihood and yeah they’ll come for you.
> right wingers are very likely to protest over losing jobs
Everybody protests over losing jobs. Currently, the MAGA crowd is busily putting itself out of work, so this really only comes down to taking action in the cities.
Not part of the rest of the conversation, just narrowing in on the idea of speech being free if there are consequences. That sounds like some sort of 1950's-era doublespeak. If there are consequences, how would speech be free? It's a very American-centric perspective that "Free Speech" is defined as "1st Amendment". Free speech means not getting fired, jumped, killed, poisoned, expelled, etc. Fired is something that would happen in Soviet Times as well, in the USSR, and in the McCarthy era, in the U.S.
How do you define which speech is speech worthy of protection and which speech is a consequence of speech and therefore not worthy of protection?
For example, imagine some CEO says something politically objectionable, as is their right granted by allowing free speech. Do I have the right to protest or boycott their company as part of my free speech rights or would that be illegal because I'm rendering a consequence for the CEO's speech?
I just have trouble conceptualizing what you think a world with consequence free speech would actually look like.
"Fire in a crowded theater" was originally a strawman introduced by the Supreme Court to justify their ruling in Schenck v. United States. To remind, Schenck was a Socialist Party member who was distributing flyers encouraging resistance to the draft during WW1, and was convicted for the same under the Espionage Act of 1917.
SCOTUS affirmed his conviction, saying that "the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils".
It is funny to see this type of comment downthread of a criticism of bothsidesism. You set up a spectrum in which one "extreme" is the status quo of American culture going back generations and the other "extreme" is a seemingly impossible to achieve idea for which I have never seen a single reasonable person advocate. One of those is a lot more extreme than the other. The only reason we are even having this conversation in this thread is because the Trump administration is trying to be more extreme than your first "extreme" by having the US government inflict consequences for speech.
Are you arguing with me or the person I am replying to?
I object to people casually paraphrasing, you have a right to free speech but not consequences of that speech. "Freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" Aside from sounding vaguely like a threat, it's a paradoxical attack on freedom of speech. Here's my point again:
Freedom of speech means a lot of things. One of them is the American-centric perspective of "1st Amendment" + Supreme Court precedent, which is that the government should not be involved in unduly prohibiting speech, and we define a bunch of speech as protected. For example, we exclude imminent threat, which in the U.S. is not protected - I can't go up in a speech and rile people up to go attack another race tomorrow. But I can rail against a race (which in most of Europe would be prohibited speech as it's Incitement)).
Now that I've established it means a few things, let's talk about 'consequences.'. The 1st Amendment protects you from government prosecution for protected speech. It doesn't protect you from getting fired, people following you around with placards because of your speech, Instagram banning you, your ISP blocking you, your bank canceling your accounts, etc.
Yet these are the (non-1st-Amendment-centric) attacks on Freedom of Speech. You can argue they're good, they're not good, whatever.
Summary of my argument: freedom of speech CAN mean freedom from SOME consequences.
Consequences are the WHOLE point. In the U.S. we had McCarthyism, where if you were vaguely left-wing you would lose your job, you would lose your life. In the USSR if you didn't follow party lines you'd lose your job, or be reassigned a shitty job. These are Consequences.
In the Reign of the last decade of a new racialized political activism, some people lost jobs for reasons that were dubious, because they had unpopular views. The Left did it.
Today, the Right is doing it, and they're taking in an extra step.
When does it stop? Ahh, good question! It stops when we begin respecting Freedom of Speech as a principle and not a recycled way to attack our enemies.
Again, apologies for both-sides-ism, as someone who believes in civil liberties, I am a both-sides-ist.
>Are you arguing with me or the person I am replying to?
The way some people use the internet truly puzzle me. A username is on each comment. I made a comment, you replied, and I replied back. I wasn't arguing with myself. You took the time to reiterate your philosophy in more depth without even bothering to first take the literal second to check the usernames to clear up your confusion or pausing for a moment to actually engage with anything actually said in my last comment? I wasn't asking you for more details on your philosophy, I was asking you direct and specific questions on how this philosophy meshes with the complexities of the real world. I frankly don't know how to respond beyond just referring you back to the questions in my previous comment.
Because it's not that great a question: How do you define protected speech when the same speech is used to punish someone else, and if it's an expression for example, that performs an action, how do we draw the line if it should be protected? That's what you asked. It's not a username issue. I didn't read it as a direct reply because I hadn't conceptualized that stopping speech is protected speech. Or is the Internet perplexing us again and I'm making no sense?
I re-iterated my point that freedom of speech is loosely defined and we have a problem with weaponizing protection of one side at the expense of the other. The Consequences argument. I maintain that consequences of speech are the issue. Let me phrase it like this: the general principle of respecting differing views, however repugnant, has fallen by the wayside. The ACLU of the 20th century has excellent arguments for why we should consider respecting repugnant views. You're throwing in a curve ball of defining speech as also potentially blocking or causing 'consequences', but that's missing the bigger picture.
You don't agree, but does that better address the problem you raised?
>You don't agree, but does that better address the problem you raised?
No, because you still aren't addressing the underlying point. Protesting is protected speech. Protesting in response to speech is therefore also protected speech despite it being a consequence. You are refusing to engage with this simple example that shows the inherent contradiction of your philosophy.
It's not 'protesting' to blackball someone from a job. It's that you defined speech in your own way, and are resisting taking a step back and thinking about freedom of speech as an abstract principle or tenet.
>It's not 'protesting' to blackball someone from a job.
Can you be specific here? What part isn't protesting? Should it be illegal to stand outside a business with a protest sign? What about organizing a boycott? Or even a decentralized and completely grassroots boycott? Should it be illegal to make the personal decision to not buy a company's product due to something said by one of their employees? Or would it be the company listening to protesters and firing the employee that should be illegal? What if the boycotts gain traction and it becomes the prudent financial decision to fire the employee? Does the company have an obligation to keep that employee forever even if it eventually leads to them going out of business?
>are resisting taking a step back and thinking about freedom of speech as an abstract principle or tenet.
Yes, that is what I have been trying to communicate to you. This principle you have of consequence free speech can only exist as a principle. Once it interacts with the complexities of the real world it becomes impossible to actually define, legislate, and enforce fairly. Your refusal to actually engage with my specific questions and examples suggests that you know this at least subconsciously. You don't want to say that protesting should be illegal, so instead you relabel it as "to blackball someone from a job". That relabeling makes it acceptable to be against it.
You're playing with words, using a sort of ordinary-language-philosophical re-invention of the idea of free speech, and saying, why doesn't it apply to the blackballing someone from a job. In paragraph 1, you suggest that it's legitimate protest. In paragraph 2, I'm actually relabeling it (not sure what that means, but yes - it's a real world example).
Your paragraph 1, though, has the thoughtful query of exploring what is and isn't freedom of speech, and throwing out some scenarios to mull over. I agree that This principle you have of consequence free speech can only exist as a principle. Once it interacts with the complexities of the real world it becomes impossible to actually define, legislate, and enforce fairly.. How about, the spirit of the principle of freedom of speech could be that we don't strike fear in people who express opposing views.
Should it be illegal to make a personal decision not to buy a company's product? Reductio ad absurdum fail. No, because aside from being stupidly unenforceable, it has nothing to do with shutting down opposing views. Company listening to protesters and firing a company? Should it be illegal? It should be illegal on the basis of workers' rights, but I don't consider it freedom of speech to fire anyone or to keep them. It's another category of problem. Basically: it sounds like you're trying to defend shutting down speech by looking for ways to say that it's freedom of speech to do so.
Since you are fishing for 'first principles' (as a tech-centric board I can see how sexy it is to try to re-invent the concepts and throw them out as unworkable, as if law were mathematical), how about we think about the abstract 'spirit of the law' so-to-speak, and break out of the idea that since the idea of freedom of speech is imperfect, it should be thrown out. Because if you consider SUPPRESSING speech to be an 'expression' of speech, then it sounds like you're attacking the entire foundation of it, and we just don't align on values. We're in the realm of the social, the legal, cultural, not in the realm of absolute principles or foundational mathematical notions. I am not suggesting that, again, it should be ILLEGAL or LEGAL to do very specific things (we can spend forever mulling through scenarios), I'm suggesting - a few messages up in the thread - that if we don't CARE about freedom of expression, things like blackballing people from a job or deporting someone on a green card are perfectly OK. And I 'both sides-istically' purposely showed examples of the Right doing it, and the Left doing it, in order to provoke people to go back to thinking about the abstract principle of it.
The LEGAL matter is a different category, and super interesting to talk about. It's philosophy, it's Supreme Court precedent in the U.S., there are some fascinating speeches by ACLU figures like Ira Glasser, their arguments in the old 1st Amendment cases of the 20th century.
Free speech doesn’t mean not getting fired. You can get fired in any county for things that you say (e.g. insulting your coworkers, lying to your boss, defaming your employer on social media, …). The exact laws and social conventions obviously vary from country to country, but this shouldn’t be a difficult concept in general.
Someone doxxing you and pressuring your employee to fire you because you said something they don't agree with politically is the same as you insulting your coworkers in your eyes?
You don't see any discrepancy between those two scenarios?
And you don't see anything wrong with the former scenario?
Not the op, but no - I don't see anything wrong with the scenario: the employer is making the call, and if they find the speech of the employee doesn't fit with their worldview they have all the rights to fire them.
Practical example: the employer is an LGBTQ+ friendly establishment, the employee is on social media saying that LGBTQ+ people are all deviants and will all burn in hell for their sins. I think the employer should have the freedom to fire the person, right?
Forcing the employer to keep the employee is the equivalent of compelled speech.
You're just abstracting it and trying to draw concrete conclusions form abstract cases. Of course it depends on what someone says; to ignore this is asinine.
When I see the left's recent brazen devotion to "winning" and "sticking it to the other side", sometimes it feels like Democrats have started acting like Republicans.
And it turns out that wasn't sustainable.
I know it's glib and coarse and lacking in nuance but when I hear American conservatives complain about the ways of the liberal countrymen I can't help but think, "That's how you guys sounded for a long time. Now they're doing it, lo and behold: everyone loses."
If you get fired for saying something stupid, you might want to consider the notion that you deserve not to have a job. They’re called consequences, and if you don’t like them, remaining silent is free.
Put otherwise, it’s very possible that your livelihood is trivial.
This is just asinine. Consider the same argument flipped around:
"If you get deported for saying something stupid, you may want to consider the notion that you do not deserve to live in the US. They’re called consequences, and if you don’t like them, remaining silent is free."
Both arguments are ridiculous because they present no evidence as to whether someone deserves a job or a visa stay.
No, I'm not going to disagree with your empty statement; there's nothing there to even take a stance on. The problem with your original position is that there are real differences between A) getting deported for saying there are too many civilian casualties in Gaza, B) materially supporting Hamas, C) getting fired because you have a secret twitter account where you're overtly racist, and D) refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding then getting sued and becoming a media spectacle.
Your argument can be used to support consequences for every single one of these scenarios because it's just "maybe when a bad thing happens it was deserved". Sure, yeah, sometimes people deserve things and sometimes they don't, but pointing this out is a useless addition to a conversation.
By the same logic the students got themselves vanished by not strictly following the rules of the visa ( one example, student had a dui ). It is not better, but the moment you erode basic speech protections it spills over to a lot of other areas.
Extremism on any side is bad, period. 'But they are worse' is sort of moot point and most people don't care about details, you simply lose normal audience and maybe gain some fringe.
You really don't see a problem with this? I consider myself more on the left, but this practice has always seemed highly antithetical to liberal values to me.
If somebody in their off hours says something assinine, and telling (some might call that "snitching to") their employer in a public forum like Twitter (in a clear attempt to get a social media frenzy going to ultimately get them fired) is a good thing, then wouldn't it logically follow that an employer should not only be permitted but actively encouraged to monitor employees 100% of the time so they can fire them if they ever step out of the corporate line? Amazon does this to many low-level employees just on-the-job and most people think that's creepy and unfair, I can't imagine extending that to off-hours as well. At a minimum wouldn't it follow that it would be great for employers to set up a snitch line so anybody could (even anonymously) call to make reports on people? Is that a world you'd want to live in?
On the next line, let's say the person is fired from their job for a gross tweet. Should they be able to get a new job after that? If so, how does the previous history get erased so the prospective new employers don't see it and avoid them (this very type of thing is by the way, a huge problem for formerly incarcerated people especially felons). Add in that there was no trial, no standard of evidence, no due process, just a swinging axe from an executioner. Should this person (and often their families) just be relegated to extreme poverty the rest of their lives? Blacklisted from employment like the communists in Hollywood were?
In a free country, private employers should be allowed to choose who they employ, with very narrow exceptions for discrimination based on race, religion, etc.
In a free country, citizens should be allowed to read what other citizens write in public.
Those both seem pretty obvious, but put the two of them together and it means people can lose their jobs or not be hired for stuff they tweet. How do you resolve that?
IMO the real issue isn’t that employers can make decisions based on this stuff. It’s that employers are far too big. If we had 20 Amazons, getting fired from one of them wouldn’t be such a big deal.
I think you're missing the basic distinction between private parties and government.
Private parties (including companies) largely have freedom of association. There are (theoretically) protections in "commerce" against a company discriminating against a person or group based on "innate" factors (such as skin color or gender).
But largely, people and companies have a wide degree of latitude about what they are and are not allowed to do.
The government, on the other hand, (theoretically) is largely not allowed to stop people from saying things or associating with each other, and when these prohibitions are in effect they're subject to both documentation and review. This is "theory" because the government has done lots of shady things.
The government, similarly (and theoretically), is bound by a variety of procedural constraints, such as due process, right to see an attorney, right of the attorney to request your presence, right to a trial, etc.
There's a categorical distinction between:
I, a private party, am offended that I face consequences of offending someone else when I would prefer not to face any consequences.
and
I, a private party, am abducted by the organization in this country with a monopoly on violence and which interprets all laws, and I vanish with no recourse from anyone.
> Those both seem pretty obvious, but put the two of them together and it means people can lose their jobs or not be hired for stuff they tweet. How do you resolve that?
If the employer happened to see it, then yes I think that's well within rights. But I think having some random stranger see something and actively campaign against the employee to their employer is a little bit different. It's not illegal, nor should it be, but there are plenty of things that are legal but still not good behavior. I would consider this under that umbrella.
The scenario being discussed is employers looking at employees’ public statements, or third parties telling employers about those public statements. I don’t think that’s anything close to harassment.
The question was about "to get a social media frenzy going".
And this is never just an employer randomly looking at a tweet, for which they are almost never going to do anything about it. Most employers don't care.
Instead, the much more likely scenario is mass points of harassment, stalking, and death threats targeted at people's friends and family, when such a "social media frenzy" happens.
You cannot ignore the actual mostly likely result of your advocacy. And when you just say that this is all "free speech" you are doing disservice to the massive amount of illegal harassment that these internet mobs cause.
You do not control the mob, yet you are response for its harm anyway if you try to start one.
All of this stuff goes hand in hand. If you are getting a "social media frenzy going", to get someone fired, you are also response for when that social media targets someone's friends and family with stalking, harassment, and death threats.
You cannot pick and chose the consequences of your social media frenzy. It all happens at once, and you don't control the mob. And you are at fault for all of the consequences of that hate mob.
Through the process of " getting a social media frenzy going".
Regardless of your motivation, when you gather up a social media frenzy, you can't control the mob. It just ends with everyone being harassed en mass by the mob.
And you are still responsible for the consequences of that internet hate mob, if you use it.
Why should we make an exception based on religion but not on political viewpoint? That is logically inconsistent. There's nothing special about religion.
The historical answer is because Congress wanted to be sure that employers could fire Communists for being Communists.
Of course, that's not my view. I think political affiliation should probably be protected, but it needs to be very narrow. You shouldn't be able to be fired for being a Republican. But if you post "Gay people should be executed," you shouldn't be able to hide behind "I'm a Republican, that's a political view!" any more than you should be able to hide behind "I'm a Christian, that's a religious view!"
But if it is political/religious view? I don't quite understand how we can draw a line here. In general, belonging to a religion or political movement literally means that the subject has a set of certain explicitly stated views.
I agree the pervasiveness of at-will employment and the gig economy, when combined with the way our economy is set up to require employment for survival, are a problem.
You can’t win with these people. They don’t care if they aren’t personally impacted. The “sjw boogeyman” that could theoretically impact their cushy livelihood matters more than the very real right wing government that exists right now and is disappearing people.
But as long as they can still say the n word on twitter and call of duty everything will be okay. Who cares about those disappeared people anyway, they weren’t even citizens
Listen, this is not theoretical. In my realm, we had people getting in trouble for otherwise benign speech, because someone's feeling matter more than basic.common sense. The pendulum has swung pretty hard not because sjw bogeyman, but because it has gotten to the point people skilled in ignoring corporate idiocy had enough AND the chronic complainers were demanding increasing superpowers.
"Getting in trouble" at work and being disappeared are so freaking different that there is no discussing it. If you cannot see a difference, you are blind.
Hmm. Allow me to offer a counter perspective. You are arguing for a complete dismissal of someone's point of view, because you perceive the presented argument to be not an appropriate comparison. However, your response is that the conversation should be shut down and not address the points given. I do not think anyone in this thread is arguing it is not happening. Some of us are actually saying that there is a quite a slippery that we were taken down on. If it helps, it did not start in 2018 ( although some tactics did escalate in that period ).
And, I might add, in US, your work is not just your work. It is your healthcare, your network, your family's wellbeing. If you do not see why some of us consider it an issue, you, if you allow this blatant repetition of your phrase for a specific effect, are blind.
Are these people in your realm being picked up off the street by the police, drugged, put into an airplane, and then being dropped into the ocean over international waters?
Or are these people having the things they've said repeated widely, perhaps out of context, to other people, who then decide "sheesh, maybe I don't want to hang out with / work with this dude." ?
This strikes me as someone on the left complaining that they fucked around and now they are finding out. I don’t mean this in a malicious way but the lack of self reflection and perspective is staggering.
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
but yeah, same thing. sorry someone put you through the absolute hell of saying they/them at work