Leaving woke culture and God

[Brian63]

The difference is that you want to ban expressing a normal belief from eligibility into polite society.

You and skepticalbip seem to have the same affinity for strawmen. No, I do not want to “ban” a normal belief as you say. I just do not want to force people into ignoring abnormal beliefs or behaviors.

It's normal to be a racist. It's normal to want to limit immigration. These people are often well adjusted and function well in society. There are statistical differences that map race or ethnicity with violent or otherwise anti-social behaviour. These statistics don't impress you or me. But they exist and need to be explained. You and I have a different explanation to these than that certain ethnic groups are inherently aggressive. But it's got to be allowed to hold another opinion than ours, if they want them to be taken into consideration.

Who the hell is arguing that we should not be “allowed” to have other opinions? That was never, ever in contention here. Our legal rights to have different and also unpopular opinions, and also to express them, is not what is being disputed here. I have plenty of unpopular opinions, and sometimes receive blowback from them when expressed publicly. Nobody is saying I should not have the “right” to express them. Whenever someone argues for a position that I find morally revolting, I make the case why I find it morally revolting. I do not argue that they do not have a “right” to have their opinion though. Let’s leave that term “right” off the table here because that is distorting what is really under dispute. Nobody has been saying that those opinions should be banned from expression in public. What is being argued is that others can disassociate, if they desire, from people who express those views.

 

[Brian63]

When there are repeated references to phrases akin to "people should have a right to [x]" there may be some equivocation involved in the term "right." There is the legal question of whether or not the person has the right to say/do something and without the government punishing them in some way. That is not in dispute at all. In the cases at the focus of this thread, nobody's rights to free expression are being stripped away by the government.


There is also a different interpretation, into thinking that saying/doing something should mean that there should be no consequences, and that others should not hold that person's words/deeds into account when deciding how to think of or interact with them. There, it is inevitable that what we think of a person will be partly influenced by what they say/do off the field. People who are in charge of a sport, tournament, etc. should be allowed to take into account anything that the person did off the field, in deciding whether or not to give special honors to that person.

Let's note that important distinction in the future when we use the term "right." It has 2 very different interpretations which are being interchangeably.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Ah, so people in certain publically visible professions are held to particular standards of speech and behavior, you might say?

I don't understand your comment?

I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of your position, in which the givers of awards are held to certain professional standards of speech and behavior even if they personally disagree with the action being taken, but sports stars should not be held to normal professional standards of speech and behavior, even in the context of being awarded special public honors.

There's no hypocrisy. The representative of a democratic government is supposed to enshrine the values in the said democracy. Yes, there's double standards in the same way a police officer can't say some things when on duty, that he's free to say off duty. The sports woman is in no way a representative of the government. She's a private citizen. While representing Australia in sports, she's there because of her tennis ability, not her opinions.

Letting her have whatever opinions she wants, should be protected and sacred for the institutions of a democratic nation. Private citizens should never be penalized or having withheld awards simply because of their political opinions. I think that's pretty fundamental in a democracy.

I do think you understand the difference, and now refuse to back down because you're a bit embarrassed. I do hope you are embarrassed by this blunder

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who the hell is arguing that we should not be “allowed” to have other opinions? That was never, ever in contention here. Our legal rights to have different and also unpopular opinions, and also to express them, is not what is being disputed here. I have plenty of unpopular opinions, and sometimes receive blowback from them when expressed publicly. Nobody is saying I should not have the “right” to express them. Whenever someone argues for a position that I find morally revolting, I make the case why I find it morally revolting. I do not argue that they do not have a “right” to have their opinion though. Let’s leave that term “right” off the table here because that is distorting what is really under dispute. Nobody has been saying that those opinions should be banned from expression in public. What is being argued is that others can disassociate, if they desire, from people who express those views.

Yet you have a problem with her being given an award for her sports illustrious sports career? Do you not see the paradox in what you are saying?

 

[Politesse]

There's no hypocrisy. The representative of a democratic government is supposed to enshrine the values in the said democracy. Yes, there's double standards in the same way a police officer can't say some things when on duty, that he's free to say off duty. The sports woman is in no way a representative of the government. She's a private citizen.

So are the members of sports organizations, which give out most sports awards. Yet you are trying to compel speech on their part. Why?

The Order of Australia is a different matter, but in that case, the rules of conduct are clearly stated; they aren't just automatically given to every sports player who has good stats, the reward is explicitly about both sports and normal conduct, much like a knighthood. I may have killed two thousand Iraqi children with one ballistic missile during the last war, but the government is not obliged to give me a Presidential Medal of Honor for it just because I was, quantitatively, the "best soldier" in the battle.

Letting her have whatever opinions she wants, should be protected and sacred for the institutions of a democratic nation.

No one has so much as suggested policing opinons. Sanctioning somene for behavior is not the same thing as thought control. I thought about robbing a bank the other day, idly noticing that there seemed to be a gaping flaw in their security setup. This was not a crime. But saying "hey guys, let's go rob that bank" and explaining how to do it could be considered incitement, and actually doing so would be theft.

I do think you understand the difference, and now refuse to back down because you're a bit embarrassed. I do hope you are embarrassed by this blunder

Funny, I was thinking the same thing in reverse.

 

[Brian63]

The heavy use of terms of "banned" or "allowed" or "right" in this discussion reminds me of recent conservative Republican commentary from the likes of Donald Trump, Josh Hawley, or Devin Nunes, complaining about how they are being censored or unable to express their views. All the while they are doing so on national TV networks (e.g. Fox News), have access to massive audiences in their official capacities, etc.

No, you are not being "banned" or "censored" and you are not losing your "right" to speech at all. All that is under dispute is what others can be allowed to do as a response to the particular speech you are expressing.

 

[Brian63]

Who the hell is arguing that we should not be “allowed” to have other opinions? That was never, ever in contention here. Our legal rights to have different and also unpopular opinions, and also to express them, is not what is being disputed here. I have plenty of unpopular opinions, and sometimes receive blowback from them when expressed publicly. Nobody is saying I should not have the “right” to express them. Whenever someone argues for a position that I find morally revolting, I make the case why I find it morally revolting. I do not argue that they do not have a “right” to have their opinion though. Let’s leave that term “right” off the table here because that is distorting what is really under dispute. Nobody has been saying that those opinions should be banned from expression in public. What is being argued is that others can disassociate, if they desire, from people who express those views.

Yet you have a problem with her being given an award for her sports illustrious sports career? Do you not see the paradox in what you are saying?

I have seen that you have not demonstrated any paradox in the following:

John Smith has a legal right to hold his opinion.
John Smith has a legal right to express his opinion.
Sports League X also has a legal right to want to disassociate with John Smith, because they deem his particular opinions toxic to the reputation of the sport, dishonorable to its other players and fans, etc.
All the while, John Smith still has the legal right to hold and express his opinion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

So are the members of sports organizations, which give out most sports awards. Yet you are trying to compel speech on their part. Why?

This is the whole should a midwife be forced to perform abortion debate. Yes, of course. If you have that job it is expected of you to fulfil it to the best of your ability. If you can't, get another job.

The Order of Australia is a different matter, but in that case, the rules of conduct are clearly stated; they aren't just automatically given to every sports player who has good stats, the reward is explicitly about both sports and normal conduct, much like a knighthood. I may have killed two thousand Iraqi children with one ballistic missile during the last war, but the government is not obliged to give me a Presidential Medal of Honor for it just because I was, quantitatively, the "best soldier" in the battle.

So you think these are reasonable to compare?

No one has so much as suggested policing opinons. Sanctioning somene for behavior is not the same thing as thought control. I thought about robbing a bank the other day, idly noticing that there seemed to be a gaping flaw in their security setup. This was not a crime. But saying "hey guys, let's go rob that bank" and explaining how to do it could be considered incitement, and actually doing so would be theft.

What crime exactly was she inciting? Being a racist is not a crime. it's just a political opinion.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Who the hell is arguing that we should not be “allowed” to have other opinions? That was never, ever in contention here. Our legal rights to have different and also unpopular opinions, and also to express them, is not what is being disputed here. I have plenty of unpopular opinions, and sometimes receive blowback from them when expressed publicly. Nobody is saying I should not have the “right” to express them. Whenever someone argues for a position that I find morally revolting, I make the case why I find it morally revolting. I do not argue that they do not have a “right” to have their opinion though. Let’s leave that term “right” off the table here because that is distorting what is really under dispute. Nobody has been saying that those opinions should be banned from expression in public. What is being argued is that others can disassociate, if they desire, from people who express those views.

Yet you have a problem with her being given an award for her sports illustrious sports career? Do you not see the paradox in what you are saying?

I have seen that you have not demonstrated any paradox in the following:

John Smith has a legal right to hold his opinion.
John Smith has a legal right to express his opinion.
Sports League X also has a legal right to want to disassociate with John Smith, because they deem his particular opinions toxic to the reputation of the sport, dishonorable to its other players and fans, etc.
All the while, John Smith still has the legal right to hold and express his opinion.

You're splitting hairs. If we penalize people when they express themselves freely, they aren't free to express themselves.

 

[Politesse]

This is the whole should a midwife be forced to perform abortion debate. Yes, of course. If you have that job it is expected of you to fulfil it to the best of your ability. If you can't, get another job.

A more appropriate example would be if you were trying to force a Catholic health organization to give an award for "best doctor" to an abortion clinician.

 

[Politesse]

Not receiving a bauble is not a "penalty".

 

[DrZoidberg]

This is the whole should a midwife be forced to perform abortion debate. Yes, of course. If you have that job it is expected of you to fulfil it to the best of your ability. If you can't, get another job.

A more appropriate example would be if you were trying to force a Catholic health organization to give an award for "best doctor" to an abortion clinician.

You're loading the deck. A more correct example would be if a healthcare organisation wanted to give an award to person considered to be an outstanding doctor but refuse because he's against social welfare. His political opinions shouldn't influence the award being given or not.

In war we don't give a fuck about what opinions a soldier has, as long as he's shooting the enemy. Succeeding on the job should be what counts.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Not receiving a bauble is not a "penalty".

National honors are supposed to see all citizens as all having a fighting chance to get it. That's the point. We all know it's a lie. But that's the story we tell ourselves. Only allowing certain priviliged groups get awards goes against all principles of a democratic country. I think it is a penalty.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Sweden right now has a huge problem that "baubles" are only given to extremely woke feminsts far out on the left. Moderate right wing politicians are routinely branded as extremists and locked out from polite society and vilified in state controlled media. You might say why are they whining about baubles. But these awards are given out by the government or national organisations. So it matters.

 

[Brian63]

You're splitting hairs. If we penalize people when they express themselves freely, they aren't free to express themselves.

Yes, they absolutely are free to express themselves. They just need to realize that there are also social consequences to the content of our speech. Others are also not obligated to ignore certain speech or treat all speech as equal. People can boycott products, write letters of disapproval for certain speech, etc.

 

[Politesse]

In war we don't give a fuck about what opinions a soldier has, as long as he's shooting the enemy. Succeeding on the job should be what counts.

Then we profoundly disagree, and I think you are more of a danger to a free society than myself, though it should be understood that in either case it is making mountains out of molehills.

 

[jab]

Your strawman is here:

In other words, you seem to think that holding the "current popular opinion" is more important in recognizing excellence than excellence itself

No. That is not what I am arguing for at all. That is your misunderstanding, your strawman.

That is exactly what you are arguing if you refuse to recognize and award the best in a field because they hold the 'wrong' social view. You are saying that the 'wrong' social view negates recognition of their superior abilities since, if they had the 'right' social view, then they should be awarded recognition.

So you would have agreed with stripping Muhamad Ali of his title since he had a 'politically incorrect' mindset for that time.

No one is proposing taking away any of Maggie C S's titles. False equivalency.

 

[DrZoidberg]

You're splitting hairs. If we penalize people when they express themselves freely, they aren't free to express themselves.

Yes, they absolutely are free to express themselves. They just need to realize that there are also social consequences to the content of our speech. Others are also not obligated to ignore certain speech or treat all speech as equal. People can boycott products, write letters of disapproval for certain speech, etc.

People, but not governments. Well, they can. But then the government has abandoned the pretense of being for democratic values. You can't have it both ways.

 

[DrZoidberg]

In war we don't give a fuck about what opinions a soldier has, as long as he's shooting the enemy. Succeeding on the job should be what counts.

Then we profoundly disagree, and I think you are more of a danger to a free society than myself, though it should be understood that in either case it is making mountains out of molehills.

Yes, we do. But I don't think it's a minor issue. The way fascism works is that we stack the deck for certain groups, effectively blocking segments of the population from social advancements or awards. We only acknowledge the successes of certain people. Roosevelt didn't acknowledge Jesse Owen winning the 1936 Olympic medal springs to mind. My ex wives family is Jewish and is from Budapest. They're an upper middle class family. It's by putting these kinds of pressures on them that her family has now left Hungary. It's entirely due to political pressures. Worth noting that while given it his best shot, Hitler failed to remove her family from Hungary, back in the day.

This stuff isn't trivial. When governments put pressure on a population to encourage the expression of certain beliefs it kills discussion. Impopular opinions are left to fester in the shadows and it leads to extremism and political instability. I think you are naive not to see the inevitable result of the policy.

 

[Brian63]

You're splitting hairs. If we penalize people when they express themselves freely, they aren't free to express themselves.

Yes, they absolutely are free to express themselves. They just need to realize that there are also social consequences to the content of our speech. Others are also not obligated to ignore certain speech or treat all speech as equal. People can boycott products, write letters of disapproval for certain speech, etc.

People, but not governments. Well, they can. But then the government has abandoned the pretense of being for democratic values. You can't have it both ways.

We were not even talking about the government banning or muzzling speech. We were discussing whether private trophies or arenas could and would be named after certain individuals, given the content of their off-court behavior. So this matter of bringing government into it is irrelevant and a red herring.