Zachary Amaranth said:
there is an expression, missing forest for the trees. your missing the big picture and get stuck on a few examples and individualities.
the hidden eagle said:
I'm done responding to you since you continue to put words in my mouth.Point out the "multiple times" I said racists should be killed in this thread....oh that's right there aren't any.If I did what you're doing I could make you sound like a apologist who thinks nobody should be fired or punished ever for what they do or said.For example if someone said on Twitter that gays are evil and deserve or Hitler was a good huy while acting as the public face of a company,you'd probaly complain when he/she rightfully gets fired.
Hell going by your logic nobody should be fired ever.A employee is costing you money by shooting his/her mouth off?Who the fuck cares because their freedom of speech is apparently more sacred to you than the company's future.
ah, more baseless complaints and false equivalences. is that all you got, really?
the hidden eagle said:
Also your definition of the word terrorism is interesting....because apparently if someone is fired or banned from somewhere for saying offensive things,then they're the equivalent of people dying in suicide bombings.
you should look up the defintion, apperently you dont know it yourself.
here, ill do it for you:
terrorism
1.the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.
2.the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism or terrorization.
3.a terroristic method of governing or of resisting a government.
the hidden eagle said:
It's not a invasion of privacy if he asked to be recorded,and just like all information nowadays this particular recording made it's way on the internet.
if you recorded your sons birthday and then somone stole it and posted it on the internet it would still be invasion of privacy, just like it is in this case. this is a clear invasion of privacy as defined by law and if you say it isnt then you are
factually wrong.
Kuchinawa212 said:
Strazdas said:
Makes plenty of sense. If you're a community manager at a company, which is pretty responsible for the way the public sees your projects, then maybe- JUST MAYBE- saying controversial things might be better expressed in private then on the net where everyone can see it. You can have opinions, express them openly but doesn't mean you're free of the ramifications of what you're saying.
no, that does not make sense. not if you want to live in free society anyway. and no, your job position should not affect when you choose to express your opinion and your opinion should not affect your job position. sadly there are too many people that think discriminating is a good thing as long as it agrees with their opinion, which makes situations like these.
and yes, freedom if speech does mean your free of ramifications.
Brian Tams said:
I'm going to make one point here and then be done.
Donald Sterling is not going to jail for his comments. He's not being persecuted by the U.S. Government in any form for his comments. His right to free speech is not being violated because of this.
his first amendment right is not being violated you mean. because right to speech is not limited to first amendment.
LifeCharacter said:
I love how you act like that was actually possible before civil rights, mostly because the places you'd be finding these bigots had laws that forced you to segregate your customers or simply cut out blacks or whites and be solely for the other one. You also seem to be pretending that that didn't actually happen on some misguided basis that we've apparently devolved to the mindless masses in the meantime instead of, you know, we're just a lot more capable of knowing about such instances of bigotry/"unpopuler speech" now and a lot more capable of knowing about such negative reactions. Do you think if someone in an area outside of Jim Crow Laws but amongst a population of racists came out and said they believe black people and white people are totally equal and need to be treated the same, all the racists would just be honorable people of the past and just say okay and do nothing more than just disagree?
i never said it didnt exist in the past and nothing you say here contradicts my statement.
So you think it's perfectly acceptable to utter something racist or homophobic; if someone next to you stood up and gave a long speech about it, you'd do absolutely nothing at the very best? You don't find anything wrong in thinking black people should be reenslaved, or that gay people are child-raping monsters? If you not only wouldn't do anything negative in response to this (and this includes criticizing them openly), but condemn anyone for so much as criticizing them, then yeah, we've got the complication that you think no one should ever be able to react negatively to someone else' speech.
Ok, i didnt expect you to not udnerstand the difference between tolerance and rights and agreement. you can criticize anyone all you want, im not agians you criticizing me here for example, as long as they does not become mob juistice and you dont try to make me loose my job because i said something you didnt agree with.
But, the problem here is not you and all the other sources of absolute morality disagree, it's whether the people agree as a whole agree. And the way to figuring out if they agree is to not ask them whether free speech should be without consequence, it should be if one particular type of speech that is highly offensive to them should be "punished" with criticism and disassociation. Which group do you think will be bigger?
so a solution to mob justice is... mob justice via democracy?
As for mob justice being mob justice and being always wrong forever and ever, would you consider it wrong if people boycotted, say, Apple for just dropping all subtlety and enslaving African children to mine and build the new iPhone, because all boycotts are "mob justice," and the only difference here is that it lacks any whiny "free speech is absolute and can never be met with any consequences" defense.
yes i would consider it wrong. If apple did that they should be challenged against it in court. if apple said that they should be challenged agianst it in conversation. they should not be ran out of business. you know, we invented law and court systems so we would have something better than mob justice.