The World is Stupid

[DrZoidberg]

The issue may lie in your insistence that I should not socially pressure, or shame those who are spewing bigoted speech, as that is apparently an application of force, and applying force as a civilian could land me in trouble with law enforcement. Therefor it seems that you are advocating that I shut up and let the racist spew their bigoted speech.

Shaming is fine. Social pressure can be good or bad, depending on the outcome. As long as it stops at countering an expressed opinion with another opinion, I'm fine. What I'm not cool with is when expressing an opinion is so expensive that the person risks their livelihood or social isolation.

I'm not defending the right of somebody to be an interminable bore at parties. But it's got to be ok to have a controversial opinion. In Sweden that's not possible. In Denmark it is.

In my first job in Denmark there were two colleagues. One was pretty racist and wanted all the immigrants out of Denmark. The other guy was Kurdish. They were friends. In Denmark that's not even strange. They're fully capable of separating person from opinion. It's a great culture. Holland has the same culture. It's awesome. When I lived in Sweden I wouldn't have thought it possible.

Denmark's far right political leader Rasmus Paludan is able to show up to any situation in Denmark and people engage with him. They mock him. But he's not ostracized or attacked. I've seen him crack jokes and share beers with black demonstrators chanting slogans against him. It's an amazingly cheery, open and welcoming culture. His Swedish equivalent is regularly physically attacked and has busy security guards and it's controversial to talk to him about any subject.

Every country should have this super tolerant culture of Denmark and Holland. I've been told Singapore is similar. It just makes life so much more pleasant for everybody. There is no downside.

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

1) "I never said that"
2) Says "that"

Do you really want a world where the only people who can be publicly honest, without first checking their opinions against the PC list, is the extremely rich, who are so rich they're not sensitive about losing their job? You don't need to have read much Marxist theory to see the problem with that one.

I did not say it, and I still have not.

Do you really not understand that my saying "(there is not) any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public" is quite different from saying that anyone "need(s) to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted"?

No, I don't understand the difference. You're juxtaposing passive aggressiveness vs plain old aggressiveness. The result is the same. It leads to a totalitarian culture. I always prefer aggressiveness to passive aggressiveness every time. At least you know who your enemies are. Passive aggressive social control turns manipulates people into self hatred

It has nothing to do with aggression, passive or otherwise. My position is that there is no need to force an employer to retain an employee who may harm their brand by spewing bigoted speech in public. Conversely, there is no need to force an employer to fire an employee who spews bigoted speech in public. In both cases my position is one of allowing the employer to make the decision, so long as they are not running afoul of reasonable labor laws when doing so. In order for an employer to make that decision, they would need to be aware that their employee is spewing bigoted speech in public, and it is within my right of free speech to inform that employer when their employee is doing so. In no way am I applying force when I provide that information to the employer.

I think you're being dishonest now. It's a switch and bait. You're the one advocating force. Not me. Now you're switching it around to make it into that I'm trying to force employers to retain "difficult" employees. I'm sorry, but that's just a dishonest discussion tactic. I'm not buying it.

Are you gong to defend the habit of companies firing employees for freely expressing themselves outside work hours or not?

 

[KeepTalking]

Shaming is fine. Social pressure can be good or bad, depending on the outcome.

I would like to remind you that until this post, your position has been the following:

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

Would you now like to retract that statement?

As long as it stops at countering an expressed opinion with another opinion, I'm fine. What I'm not cool with is when expressing an opinion is so expensive that the person risks their livelihood or social isolation.

I'm not defending the right of somebody to be an interminable bore at parties. But it's got to be ok to have a controversial opinion. In Sweden that's not possible. In Denmark it is.

In my first job in Denmark there were two colleagues. One was pretty racist and wanted all the immigrants out of Denmark. The other guy was Kurdish. They were friends. In Denmark that's not even strange. They're fully capable of separating person from opinion. It's a great culture. Holland has the same culture. It's awesome. When I lived in Sweden I wouldn't have thought it possible.

Denmark's far right political leader Rasmus Paludan is able to show up to any situation in Denmark and people engage with him. They mock him. But he's not ostracized or attacked. I've seen him crack jokes and share beers with black demonstrators chanting slogans against him. It's an amazingly cheery, open and welcoming culture. His Swedish equivalent is regularly physically attacked and has busy security guards and it's controversial to talk to him about any subject.

Every country should have this super tolerant culture of Denmark and Holland. I've been told Singapore is similar. It just makes life so much more pleasant for everybody. There is no downside.

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

1) "I never said that"
2) Says "that"

Do you really want a world where the only people who can be publicly honest, without first checking their opinions against the PC list, is the extremely rich, who are so rich they're not sensitive about losing their job? You don't need to have read much Marxist theory to see the problem with that one.

I did not say it, and I still have not.

Do you really not understand that my saying "(there is not) any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public" is quite different from saying that anyone "need(s) to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted"?

No, I don't understand the difference. You're juxtaposing passive aggressiveness vs plain old aggressiveness. The result is the same. It leads to a totalitarian culture. I always prefer aggressiveness to passive aggressiveness every time. At least you know who your enemies are. Passive aggressive social control turns manipulates people into self hatred

It has nothing to do with aggression, passive or otherwise. My position is that there is no need to force an employer to retain an employee who may harm their brand by spewing bigoted speech in public. Conversely, there is no need to force an employer to fire an employee who spews bigoted speech in public. In both cases my position is one of allowing the employer to make the decision, so long as they are not running afoul of reasonable labor laws when doing so. In order for an employer to make that decision, they would need to be aware that their employee is spewing bigoted speech in public, and it is within my right of free speech to inform that employer when their employee is doing so. In no way am I applying force when I provide that information to the employer.

I think you're being dishonest now. It's a switch and bait.

This coming from someone who just spent several pages advocating for one position only to switch to the exact opposite position and acting as if that was their position all along. Meanwhile, my position has been consistent on this issue.

You're the one advocating force. Not me.

I have never advocated for force. You can only say that because of your characterization of my arguments. You just reversed yourself without fanfare on social pressure and shaming being force. I maintain that you were also incorrect on deplatforming and employers retaining the ability to decide who to fire being force.

Now you're switching it around to make it into that I'm trying to force employers to retain "difficult" employees. I'm sorry, but that's just a dishonest discussion tactic. I'm not buying it.

Please show where I attempted to put words in your mouth. I only tried to clarify my own position. I would hope that it is a position that you agree with.

Are you gong to defend the habit of companies firing employees for freely expressing themselves outside work hours or not?

Yes, I am. As long as the employee is not violating labor laws, specifically those against discrimination in the workplace, while doing so. I am also going to defend the right of companies to retain employees who freely express themselves outside of the workplace. In both cases, i am defending the employer's right to make non discriminatory employment decisions. I ascribe no argument to you other than the arguments that you have made, and that I have quoted. I would like to now ask you to provide one of those arguments. Do you think that an employer should be disallowed from firing an employee for speech made outside of the workplace that may be harmful to the employer?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I would like to remind you that until this post, your position has been the following:

Would you now like to retract that statement?

No! It's two different contexts and two different kinds of force.

It has to do with the degree of terror. If people are terrorized out of speaking freely then it's a bad kind of force. If they're not then the degree of force is fine.

The point is to maintain a society where the public discourse is free and open. Even for uncomfortable opinions. And no matter who gets offended and no matter what reason.

Today we have a society where non-woke people are terrorized out of speaking up. That's a literal fact. Try voicing a pro-neo Nazi statement on a public forum in your own name, just as a test, to see what happens.

Which is an improvement over the extremely racist 1950'ies where non-racists where terrorized into silence. While this is an improvement, we're pretty damn far from paradise. As long as anybody is terrorized into silence from simply voicing their opinion there's work to be done.

You're the one advocating force. Not me.

I have never advocated for force. You can only say that because of your characterization of my arguments. You just reversed yourself without fanfare on social pressure and shaming being force. I maintain that you were also incorrect on deplatforming and employers retaining the ability to decide who to fire being force.

You reclassifying real force as pretending it isn't force isn't making the force go away.

How did I reverse myself?

Are you gong to defend the habit of companies firing employees for freely expressing themselves outside work hours or not?

Yes, I am. As long as the employee is not violating labor laws, specifically those against discrimination in the workplace, while doing so. I am also going to defend the right of companies to retain employees who freely express themselves outside of the workplace. In both cases, i am defending the employer's right to make non discriminatory employment decisions. I ascribe no argument to you other than the arguments that you have made, and that I have quoted. I would like to now ask you to provide one of those arguments. Do you think that an employer should be disallowed from firing an employee for speech made outside of the workplace that may be harmful to the employer?

Aka... The "Holocaust wasn't wrong because it's wasn't illegal"-argument.

The laws and legal rights of employers are irrelevant to my argument. This isn't a legal matter. It's a cultural matter. You can't legislate against people being dicks to each other. I think going the legal route on this issue is the wrong path.

Denmark has quite weak laws protecting employees from getting fired. You can fire people here pretty much willy nilly. Yet, somehow they still manage to refrain from firing employees with uncomfortable open political views, because the culture tolerates it. It's not seen as a problem or a liability. Openly racist people are assumed to be professional at work even when they serve non-white customers. And they might even make jokes about it when they do. It's seen as a non-issue here.

 

[KeepTalking]

No! It's two different contexts

What is this new context in which we are describing the use of force that is not one of using speech (social pressure and shaming) to counter speech (bigotry). To my knowledge we have not changed contexts, and are still discussing the same subject where you stated without qualification that social pressure and shaming are force.

and two different kinds of force.

Then I would ask you to please define what you meant by force at that time, and your current definition of force, as I cannot be expected to read your mind when you change the operating definition of the word you are using.

It has to do with the degree of terror. If people are terrorized out of speaking freely then it's a bad kind of force. If they're not then the degree of force is fine.

While I agree that terrorizing someone would fit the definition of force that I though we were operating under, I disagree that social pressure and shaming should be described as terrorism. As a result, I do not see that any degree of force is being used when simply applying social pressure, or shaming an individual.

The point is to maintain a society where the public discourse is free and open. Even for uncomfortable opinions. And no matter who gets offended and no matter what reason.

I do not disagree that this should be the point.

Today we have a society where non-woke people are terrorized out of speaking up. That's a literal fact.

Happens to woke people as well. I do not place myself amongst the woke. I also do not agree that applying social pressure and shaming is force, much less terrorism. I am not trying to keep people from speaking up when I do those things. I am either trying to get them to see how unreasonable they are in being bigoted, or trying to show others that the bigot in question is in fact being bigoted.

Try voicing a pro-neo Nazi statement on a public forum in your own name, just as a test, to see what happens.

Why would I do that? It is not a position I hold, and I would expect many members of my family, friends and coworkers to shame me for holding that position and/or apply social pressure to me in order to get me to change my position.

Which is an improvement over the extremely racist 1950'ies where non-racists where terrorized into silence. While this is an improvement, we're pretty damn far from paradise. As long as anybody is terrorized into silence from simply voicing their opinion there's work to be done.

Now we have moved entirely from "force" to "terrorism". The drama is strong in this one.

I have never advocated for force. You can only say that because of your characterization of my arguments. You just reversed yourself without fanfare on social pressure and shaming being force. I maintain that you were also incorrect on deplatforming and employers retaining the ability to decide who to fire being force.

You reclassifying real force as pretending it isn't force isn't making the force go away.

We have a disagreement over what constitutes force. This is not surprising, as you seem to have a disagreement with yourself over what constitutes force. More on that in a minute. Your reclassifying things that are not commonly understood to be force as force does not mean that you get to put words in my mouth and say I am advocating force. Please refrain from putting words in my mouth at all. If you want to talk about things that I say, please quote me directly, as I am about to do for you.

How did I reverse myself?

I have pointed it out more than once, so you should be quite aware, but here goes again:

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

Sure. But a type of social pressure that encourages dialogue and honesty. Instead of shutting people up you don't agree with.

The first quote provides no qualification. You state flat out that social pressure is force. The second quote indicates that social pressure is not necessarily force. This is where you both reverse yourself and disagree with yourself. When I gave you the opportunity to retract the first unqualified statement, you refused to do so, however, you are still expounding upon your statement where social pressure is not necessarily force.

Are you gong to defend the habit of companies firing employees for freely expressing themselves outside work hours or not?

Yes, I am. As long as the employee is not violating labor laws, specifically those against discrimination in the workplace, while doing so. I am also going to defend the right of companies to retain employees who freely express themselves outside of the workplace. In both cases, i am defending the employer's right to make non discriminatory employment decisions. I ascribe no argument to you other than the arguments that you have made, and that I have quoted. I would like to now ask you to provide one of those arguments. Do you think that an employer should be disallowed from firing an employee for speech made outside of the workplace that may be harmful to the employer?

Aka... The "Holocaust wasn't wrong because it's wasn't illegal"-argument.

Seriously? WTF? That is nowhere near any argument I have ever made. Your mischaracterizations are getting very tiring.

The laws and legal rights of employers are irrelevant to my argument. This isn't a legal matter. It's a cultural matter. You can't legislate against people being dicks to each other. I think going the legal route on this issue is the wrong path.

Laws and legal rights are not central to my argument either. I only mentioned labor laws above, and specifically those regarding discrimination in the workplace, because I think that in general here in the US those particular laws are good ones that should be enforced. There is an entirely different discussion around this regarding right to work laws that I do not care to delve into right now. I really just wanted to stop short of saying that employers should be able to fire anyone for any reason while maintaining that an employer should be able to fire an employee for engaging in speech outside of the workplace that may be harmful to the employer or other employees.

Denmark has quite weak laws protecting employees from getting fired. You can fire people here pretty much willy nilly. Yet, somehow they still manage to refrain from firing employees with uncomfortable open political views, because the culture tolerates it. It's not seen as a problem or a liability. Openly racist people are assumed to be professional at work even when they serve non-white customers. And they might even make jokes about it when they do. It's seen as a non-issue here.

Well I am glad you feel comfortable in speaking for all of Denmark. I only feel comfortable speaking for myself, and fully realize that there are employers on both sides of the argument here in the US.

Of course, as you note, the culture is different. There is unresolved racial animosity here even after having fought a civil war over it. Openly racist people here have proven time and again that it is unwise to assume they are professional enough to put their racism aside in the workplace.

 

[Derec]

This ethnomathics is a four page proposal. It’s not even in the early stage of curriculum development and you have the Chinese “eating our lunch” already.
We don’t even know what it is yet. Calm down.

It's just the latest iteration of the rot that has been setting in for decades though.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Then I would ask you to please define what you meant by force at that time, and your current definition of force, as I cannot be expected to read your mind when you change the operating definition of the word you are using.

Force is just something that has a direction and collides with something with an opposing direction. It may or may not be overpowering. It may or may not be violent. It's a pretty open concept. Depending on context it can mean different things.

Some use of force is good, (the force of strong argumentation) while others is bad (violently suppressing those who are trying to express themselves).

It has to do with the degree of terror. If people are terrorized out of speaking freely then it's a bad kind of force. If they're not then the degree of force is fine.

While I agree that terrorizing someone would fit the definition of force that I though we were operating under, I disagree that social pressure and shaming should be described as terrorism.

I did not say "terrorism". I said "terror". The goal of terrorism is to create terror. But not everything that causes terror is terrorism. I also disagree that it is terrorism.

But social pressure and shaming, in an intolerant environment, does cause terror. Because the price of having public opinions that don't conform to the norm is high enough for people to refrain from sharing them. That's already the society we have.

The only people who speak freely today are those who have nothing to lose or are rich enough to not be sensitive to paying the high price.

There's a reason I only share my opinions on anonymous forums online. I work as a manager in a senior corporation. I have dealings with important people in politics. I can't be honest and open about my beliefs. No matter what they are. It'd be a liability.

The point is to maintain a society where the public discourse is free and open. Even for uncomfortable opinions. And no matter who gets offended and no matter what reason.

I do not disagree that this should be the point.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement on ethical grounds. Our basic values are different.

Today we have a society where non-woke people are terrorized out of speaking up. That's a literal fact.

Happens to woke people as well. I do not place myself amongst the woke. I also do not agree that applying social pressure and shaming is force, much less terrorism. I am not trying to keep people from speaking up when I do those things. I am either trying to get them to see how unreasonable they are in being bigoted, or trying to show others that the bigot in question is in fact being bigoted.

I don't care who is terrorized into not speaking up. It's always bad.

Try voicing a pro-neo Nazi statement on a public forum in your own name, just as a test, to see what happens.

Why would I do that? It is not a position I hold, and I would expect many members of my family, friends and coworkers to shame me for holding that position and/or apply social pressure to me in order to get me to change my position.

Again... our basic values are different. You're describing a hellish society IMHO. Or Sweden. You're also describing today's Sweden. I left for a reason.

Which is an improvement over the extremely racist 1950'ies where non-racists where terrorized into silence. While this is an improvement, we're pretty damn far from paradise. As long as anybody is terrorized into silence from simply voicing their opinion there's work to be done.

Now we have moved entirely from "force" to "terrorism". The drama is strong in this one.

If people are afraid to speak their minds publicly out of fear, then how isn't it terror? It's not drama, it's an accurate description of the society. Fear is a powerful form of force.

How did I reverse myself?

I have pointed it out more than once, so you should be quite aware, but here goes again:

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

Sure. But a type of social pressure that encourages dialogue and honesty. Instead of shutting people up you don't agree with.

The first quote provides no qualification. You state flat out that social pressure is force. The second quote indicates that social pressure is not necessarily force. This is where you both reverse yourself and disagree with yourself. When I gave you the opportunity to retract the first unqualified statement, you refused to do so, however, you are still expounding upon your statement where social pressure is not necessarily force.

I'm describing and contrasting different societies/different scenarios. There's nuances in the types of force and how acceptable or not they are.

If the price of voicing an unpopular opinion is low or negligible then social pressure is fine. But if the social pressure is so great, because of the price paid, that it leads to terror and the silence of minority opinions then the force of the social pressure is too high.

If you still don't get it at this point I don't think I can help you. Because I don't think I can make it more clear than this.

Of course, as you note, the culture is different. There is unresolved racial animosity here even after having fought a civil war over it. Openly racist people here have proven time and again that it is unwise to assume they are professional enough to put their racism aside in the workplace.

I understand the impulse. But it's misguided. You can't change people's opinions by gagging them or terrorising them into silence. That's what white supremacists tried to do in the 1950'ies and it blew up in their faces. I think it also works in reverse.

The world doesn't consist of good guys and bad guys where totalitarian practices and controlled speech is ok if the good guys do it.

 

[Rhea]

But social pressure and shaming, in an intolerant environment, does cause terror. Because the price of having public opinions that don't conform to the norm is high enough for people to refrain from sharing them. That's already the society we have.

The only people who speak freely today are those who have nothing to lose or are rich enough to not be sensitive to paying the high price.

You seem to believe that when bigots and hateful people speak their “opinions,” that there is no meaningful social pressure, fear or concern about speaking up applied to those they disparage.

Why so you think that bigoted opinions spewed freely have no ill effects? Or, why do you think the ill effects on those victims are negligible while social pressure to stop those statements is “terror”?

 

[DrZoidberg]

You seem to believe that when bigots and hateful people speak their “opinions,” that there is no meaningful social pressure, fear or concern about speaking up applied to those they disparage.

Why would you think that's my belief? I would have hoped that everything I have said would indicate the opposite.

Why so you think that bigoted opinions spewed freely have no ill effects? Or, why do you think the ill effects on those victims are negligible while social pressure to stop those statements is “terror”?

I don't.

Or, why do you think the ill effects on those victims are negligible while social pressure to stop those statements is “terror”?

I also do not think that.

 

[Rhea]

Why would you think that's my belief? I would have hoped that everything I have said would indicate the opposite.

Because you stated that your ideal society is one where bigots speak freely, (presumably because they do not cause “terror,”) and their victims cannot shame them for it because it would be “terror” to the bigots.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I understand the impulse. But it's misguided. You can't change people's opinions by gagging them or terrorising them into silence. That's what white supremacists tried to do in the 1950'ies and it blew up in their faces.

It gets a little old to read about the poorly misunderstood concepts of American History by some European.

The North won the Civil War on the battlefield. Post Reconstruction, the South won the battle with Jim Crow. So the whole, it blew up in the 1950's is a terribly ignorant statement as the measured timeline goes back to 1880, which is 70 years previous. The Southern States indoctrinated Jim Crow making all sorts of access to goods and services and voting harder for African Americans. The 1950s... to the 1970s was the final stand after several decades of Jim Crow (and this is white washing racism in the North (and everywhere else)). It took roughly 90 years for African Americans to start to see the end of racism in America. And I emphasize the word "start". So this whole, white supremos in the 1950s bullshit is wrong.

 

[KeepTalking]

Force is just something that has a direction and collides with something with an opposing direction. It may or may not be overpowering. It may or may not be violent. It's a pretty open concept. Depending on context it can mean different things.

Some use of force is good, (the force of strong argumentation) while others is bad (violently suppressing those who are trying to express themselves).

I think that given the sliding scale between good and bad, the use of the word "force" without qualification is imprecise as it has been used in this conversation. I have consistently operated under the definition that "force" = "violent force", and is therefor a bad thing, while it seems you have been prone to use differing definitions based on context. Since I am apparently missing the context in some cases, and in order to clear up any confusion, I would like to propose that we do not use the word "force" without qualification, and instead use a more precise word. It seems we are already shifting to "terror" and "terrorize" in some instances, so let's stick with that when we mean the bad kinds of force.

While I agree that terrorizing someone would fit the definition of force that I though we were operating under, I disagree that social pressure and shaming should be described as terrorism.

I did not say "terrorism". I said "terror". The goal of terrorism is to create terror. But not everything that causes terror is terrorism. I also disagree that it is terrorism.

Thank you for correcting me. It was indeed a mistake for me to use the term "terrorism", and I will try to avoid doing so in this context in the future. Please allow me to amend the above statement to read: "I disagree that applying social pressure and/or shaming someone should be described as terrorizing them."

But social pressure and shaming, in an intolerant environment, does cause terror. Because the price of having public opinions that don't conform to the norm is high enough for people to refrain from sharing them. That's already the society we have.

While I do agree that some may refrain from sharing their opinions due to shame or social pressure, I do not agree that it is out of terror, but more out of guilt, at least if the shaming and social pressure are not applied violently. You see, I do not think that shaming and social pressure are necessarily the bad type of force, and it seems you do not either. But when you say "social pressure and shaming is force" I read that as "social pressure and shaming is violent force". So how would you qualify the word "force", or what word would you use in place of that word that more precisely represents what you mean by it?

The only people who speak freely today are those who have nothing to lose or are rich enough to not be sensitive to paying the high price.

I have things to lose, and I am not rich. I feel that I can speak freely today with regard to the topic at hand.

There's a reason I only share my opinions on anonymous forums online. I work as a manager in a senior corporation. I have dealings with important people in politics. I can't be honest and open about my beliefs. No matter what they are. It'd be a liability.

I use a pseudonym here because it's cool to do that, and at one point I felt that I did not want everyone to know I was an atheist. I have since gotten over that last bit, but I will note that it was religious intolerance that put me in that spot to begin with. I am sorry that you feel you have to hide your opinions due to rubbing shoulders with politicians. I am glad I am not in that position, and would never seek out employment that would put me in that position. Yours is a fear with which I cannot relate.

The point is to maintain a society where the public discourse is free and open. Even for uncomfortable opinions. And no matter who gets offended and no matter what reason.

I do not disagree that this should be the point.

Then we have a fundamental disagreement on ethical grounds. Our basic values are different.

What? I think you misread what I said. Please reread my statement. When I said "I do not disagree" you can read that as mostly agreeing with your statement, the qualitative difference being my emphasis being on the word "should

Today we have a society where non-woke people are terrorized out of speaking up. That's a literal fact.

Happens to woke people as well. I do not place myself amongst the woke. I also do not agree that applying social pressure and shaming is force, much less terrorism. I am not trying to keep people from speaking up when I do those things. I am either trying to get them to see how unreasonable they are in being bigoted, or trying to show others that the bigot in question is in fact being bigoted.

I don't care who is terrorized into not speaking up. It's always bad.

I agree, but you missed my point entirely. Do you think that "trying to get them to see how unreasonable they are in being bigoted", or "trying to show others that the bigot in question is in fact being bigoted" is terrorizing someone?

Try voicing a pro-neo Nazi statement on a public forum in your own name, just as a test, to see what happens.

Why would I do that? It is not a position I hold, and I would expect many members of my family, friends and coworkers to shame me for holding that position and/or apply social pressure to me in order to get me to change my position.

Again... our basic values are different.

I don't think they are, I think you misread my previous statement. If our basic values are different, I am baffled as to how unless you mean the basic value of using definitions consistently and precisely when attempting to communicate with others.

You're describing a hellish society IMHO. Or Sweden. You're also describing today's Sweden. I left for a reason.

I just don't see how saying "that is an ignorant thing to say" or "shame on you for saying that" to a person engaging in bigoted speech makes a society hellish. I mean if you aren't trying to apply social pressure to me in this conversation, then what exactly are you doing? And I am not even being bigoted here, I am just disagreeing slightly with another liberal. Is this conversation hellish to you? If so, why are you here?

Which is an improvement over the extremely racist 1950'ies where non-racists where terrorized into silence. While this is an improvement, we're pretty damn far from paradise. As long as anybody is terrorized into silence from simply voicing their opinion there's work to be done.

Now we have moved entirely from "force" to "terrorism". The drama is strong in this one.

If people are afraid to speak their minds publicly out of fear, then how isn't it terror? It's not drama, it's an accurate description of the society. Fear is a powerful form of force.

Of course it is, but you have yet to convince me that social pressure and/or shaming necessarily instills terror in someone. Perhaps you can provide a plausible example of where you feel social pressure and/or shaming alone would instill fear in someone. That might get me a bit closer to understanding your position.

How did I reverse myself?

I have pointed it out more than once, so you should be quite aware, but here goes again:

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

Sure. But a type of social pressure that encourages dialogue and honesty. Instead of shutting people up you don't agree with.

The first quote provides no qualification. You state flat out that social pressure is force. The second quote indicates that social pressure is not necessarily force. This is where you both reverse yourself and disagree with yourself. When I gave you the opportunity to retract the first unqualified statement, you refused to do so, however, you are still expounding upon your statement where social pressure is not necessarily force.

I'm describing and contrasting different societies/different scenarios. There's nuances in the types of force and how acceptable or not they are.

That's the problem though, when you made the statement that "Social pressure and public shaming is also force" it seemed to be in the context of force being a bad thing. The things you were saying then about force and how it relates to totalitarian governments would make very little sense if we were using a more nuanced definition in which the type of force being used might actually be acceptable.

If you still don't get it at this point I don't think I can help you. Because I don't think I can make it more clear than this.

I am hoping a more precise use of language may help to clear things up, but if you are ready to give up on reaching a mutual understanding I don't suppose I can stop you.

Of course, as you note, the culture is different. There is unresolved racial animosity here even after having fought a civil war over it. Openly racist people here have proven time and again that it is unwise to assume they are professional enough to put their racism aside in the workplace.

I understand the impulse. But it's misguided. You can't change people's opinions by gagging them or terrorising them into silence. That's what white supremacists tried to do in the 1950'ies and it blew up in their faces. I think it also works in reverse.

The world doesn't consist of good guys and bad guys where totalitarian practices and controlled speech is ok if the good guys do it.

Well, of course, control of speech in a totalitarian society is a bad thing, whether or not I agree with the speech that is being controlled. On the other hand I think there is quite a difference between social pressure and/or shaming, and the control of speech in a totalitarian environment. You seem to acknowledge as much by saying that there are "nuances in the types of force and how acceptable or not they are" with regard to having said "Social pressure and public shaming is also force".

 

[DrZoidberg]

Why would you think that's my belief? I would have hoped that everything I have said would indicate the opposite.

Because you stated that your ideal society is one where bigots speak freely, (presumably because they do not cause “terror,”) and their victims cannot shame them for it because it would be “terror” to the bigots.

Good luck finding a quote from me where that is supported.

Project much?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think that given the sliding scale between good and bad, the use of the word "force" without qualification is imprecise as it has been used in this conversation. I have consistently operated under the definition that "force" = "violent force", and is therefor a bad thing, while it seems you have been prone to use differing definitions based on context. Since I am apparently missing the context in some cases, and in order to clear up any confusion, I would like to propose that we do not use the word "force" without qualification, and instead use a more precise word. It seems we are already shifting to "terror" and "terrorize" in some instances, so let's stick with that when we mean the bad kinds of force.

I don't think you're missing the context. You just decided at some point to have a private definition for force and have insisted that I use it in the same way. But that'll just lead to confusion IMHO. I'm going with the dictionary definition. I think this conversation provides the context needed. You seem to disagree.

I think we got tripped up on the whole force concept, since force can be both good and bad, depending on the result of applying the force.

But social pressure and shaming, in an intolerant environment, does cause terror. Because the price of having public opinions that don't conform to the norm is high enough for people to refrain from sharing them. That's already the society we have.

While I do agree that some may refrain from sharing their opinions due to shame or social pressure, I do not agree that it is out of terror, but more out of guilt, at least if the shaming and social pressure are not applied violently. You see, I do not think that shaming and social pressure are necessarily the bad type of force, and it seems you do not either. But when you say "social pressure and shaming is force" I read that as "social pressure and shaming is violent force". So how would you qualify the word "force", or what word would you use in place of that word that more precisely represents what you mean by it?

Social pressure, shaming and social control is on a sliding scale. Some is good. We want to punish shame thieves and rapists, or anybody engaging in activities that almost slide into those categories. But we don't want to apply so much social pressure that people stop talking openly and honestly.

Today it's pretty much only stand-up comedians, billionaires and homeless people who are able to be straight and honest about anything of any relevance. The rest of us are talking about the weather. That's the society we have today. I'm not saying the past was any better.

But whenever we have a crossroads between one social paradigm to another, we have a tiny window where being honest for people in general works for everyone. But soon the new ruling paradigm gains power and that window closes. I'm talking specifically about the 1970'ies. A guy like Robert Crumb couldn't succeed in today's political climate. Since he's just 100% honest expressing whatever he has inside of him, rather than adapting to social pressures, his form of art demands an environment where free expression is possible.

The only people who speak freely today are those who have nothing to lose or are rich enough to not be sensitive to paying the high price.

I have things to lose, and I am not rich. I feel that I can speak freely today with regard to the topic at hand.

Good for you. But I hope you do acknowledge that there are people in today's society for which this doesn't apply?

Off the top of my head I'm thinking Milo Yanoupolis who got deplatformed. I find him vile and oppose everything he's ever said and what he represents. But I'm still defending his right to say it. That's a hill I'm willing to die on.

There's a reason I only share my opinions on anonymous forums online. I work as a manager in a senior corporation. I have dealings with important people in politics. I can't be honest and open about my beliefs. No matter what they are. It'd be a liability.

I use a pseudonym here because it's cool to do that, and at one point I felt that I did not want everyone to know I was an atheist. I have since gotten over that last bit, but I will note that it was religious intolerance that put me in that spot to begin with. I am sorry that you feel you have to hide your opinions due to rubbing shoulders with politicians. I am glad I am not in that position, and would never seek out employment that would put me in that position. Yours is a fear with which I cannot relate.

But you just said you can relate. At some point you felt you couldn't be open about your atheism. So you know the feeling. Replace that feeling with any opinion. Imagine a world where being right handed is shameful. I'm assuming you are right handed. Then insert the feeling that you had regarding your atheism.

What? I think you misread what I said. Please reread my statement. When I said "I do not disagree" you can read that as mostly agreeing with your statement, the qualitative difference being my emphasis being on the word "should

Aha. Sorry. A tripped and faceplanted on your double negation. Then we do agree.

I don't care who is terrorized into not speaking up. It's always bad.

I agree, but you missed my point entirely. Do you think that "trying to get them to see how unreasonable they are in being bigoted", or "trying to show others that the bigot in question is in fact being bigoted" is terrorizing someone?

The context is everything. In Denmark or Holland no matter what opinion you voice nobody is going to be terrorised. Because the society is extremely tolerant.

Move 10 km to the North into Sweden and the situation is completely different. Unless you parrot the socially acceptable opinion nobody is going to invite you to their parties.

You can literally see the terror in people's eyes in Sweden. When an honest opinion is voiced people become tense and you see a nervous smile and they get panic in their eyes. After living in Denmark for a couple of months I could feel my shoulders relaxing and I got less headaches. Danes laugh a lot more than Swedes.

This is why I bang my drum so much about this. People who live in Sweden don't realize what a hellhole of a country they have created. It wasn't until I moved to Denmark I started to understand how insidious this culture is. It's evil.

But this is how terror works. If you have a Hell's Angel's vest no matter what you say you will create terror. Because of the context.

The only way to reverse this in Sweden is for progressive leftists in Sweden to refuse to join in on the witch hunts. To vocally start supporting free speech whenever the social ostracization starts.

In Sweden we've reached the extreme bottom end of a slippery slope. While in Denmark they're firmly at the top of it.

It's good to compare the countries since they're in all other ways extremely culturally similar.

Try voicing a pro-neo Nazi statement on a public forum in your own name, just as a test, to see what happens.

Why would I do that? It is not a position I hold, and I would expect many members of my family, friends and coworkers to shame me for holding that position and/or apply social pressure to me in order to get me to change my position.

Again... our basic values are different.

I don't think they are, I think you misread my previous statement. If our basic values are different, I am baffled as to how unless you mean the basic value of using definitions consistently and precisely when attempting to communicate with others.

A motivation to do it, is like Borat, expose intolerances in your friend group or family. You can always immediately reverse your statement by explaining why you said it.

I've many times agreed with preposterous political opinions people project onto me just to see where the rabbit hole ends. And then come clean at some point. It's fun. That's why I do it. It's always good to test people around you.

I did something similar the last time I was at a party in Malmö in Sweden. It was a group of lesbians and extremely progressive men. A guy misheard me and thought I was for legalizing rape. I just went along with it to wind him up. He was shaking with anger at the point when I told him I was joking and he'd just misheard me. It was funny. But it was the last time I was welcome as a guest to those people. Which is a shame. Because I liked them. But it is what it is. Their loss

You're describing a hellish society IMHO. Or Sweden. You're also describing today's Sweden. I left for a reason.

I just don't see how saying "that is an ignorant thing to say" or "shame on you for saying that" to a person engaging in bigoted speech makes a society hellish. I mean if you aren't trying to apply social pressure to me in this conversation, then what exactly are you doing? And I am not even being bigoted here, I am just disagreeing slightly with another liberal. Is this conversation hellish to you? If so, why are you here?

Online there's nobody that has any power. I could get banned. Until I get an alter. So you have no leverage with which to punish me socially if I don't bow to your wishes. You're also not signaling to me to back down. You're not engaging in any displays of power to threaten or harass me.

Of course it is, but you have yet to convince me that social pressure and/or shaming necessarily instills terror in someone. Perhaps you can provide a plausible example of where you feel social pressure and/or shaming alone would instill fear in someone. That might get me a bit closer to understanding your position.

Milo Yianoupolis was bullied into silence. He got his money from speaking at functions and he was deplatformed. He lost his income and went broke. There's more. Sweden has plenty of celebrity's who said something stupid in an interview which destroyed their livelihoods.

Of course, as you note, the culture is different. There is unresolved racial animosity here even after having fought a civil war over it. Openly racist people here have proven time and again that it is unwise to assume they are professional enough to put their racism aside in the workplace.

I understand the impulse. But it's misguided. You can't change people's opinions by gagging them or terrorising them into silence. That's what white supremacists tried to do in the 1950'ies and it blew up in their faces. I think it also works in reverse.

The world doesn't consist of good guys and bad guys where totalitarian practices and controlled speech is ok if the good guys do it.

Well, of course, control of speech in a totalitarian society is a bad thing, whether or not I agree with the speech that is being controlled. On the other hand I think there is quite a difference between social pressure and/or shaming, and the control of speech in a totalitarian environment. You seem to acknowledge as much by saying that there are "nuances in the types of force and how acceptable or not they are" with regard to having said "Social pressure and public shaming is also force".

My test for this is, "is it ok to be racist or homophobic in this situation"? It's an opinion. It's got to be ok to be a racist and still function in society. I'd prefer it if they weren't. But it's got to be ok to just have the opinion without it causing an outrage.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

My test for this is, "is it ok to be racist or homophobic in this situation"? It's an opinion. It's got to be ok to be a racist and still function in society. I'd prefer it if they weren't. But it's got to be ok to just have the opinion without it causing an outrage.

#allwordsmatter

racism =/ bigotry

If you say someone is allowed to be racist, what that means is, that someone is allowed to indoctrinate systematic bigotry into the legal code. You haven't put forth anything that I've read that indicates you think that is okay. So you need to use better words, as "Blacks can't be racists" is based on the actual definition of the word. Blacks can be bigots, but not racists (in America).

So what you mean is "is it ok to be bigoted or homophobic in this situation?" If it is okay to be racist, that means you are good with people wanting to reestablish Jim Crow laws in America.

 

[DrZoidberg]

My test for this is, "is it ok to be racist or homophobic in this situation"? It's an opinion. It's got to be ok to be a racist and still function in society. I'd prefer it if they weren't. But it's got to be ok to just have the opinion without it causing an outrage.

#allwordsmatter

racism =/ bigotry

If you say someone is allowed to be racist, what that means is, that someone is allowed to indoctrinate systematic bigotry into the legal code.

No it doesn't.

I once dated an Arab woman who thought that Arabs were racially predisposed to violence more than whites. It's a straight up racist opinion. But it has nothing to say about legal codes. At no point did she say anything about different laws for different races.

I know a Jewish guy who thinks that on average Jews are smarter than whites. Undeniably racism. Has nothing to say about legal codes. And we're still good friends. His opinion has not put a dent in our friendship one iota.

So you need to use better words, as "Blacks can't be racists" is based on the actual definition of the word. Blacks can be bigots, but not racists (in America).

What? Racism just means you think that certain personality traits are genetically inherited and are concentrated in races and that some races are better than others.

So what you mean is "is it ok to be bigoted or homophobic in this situation?" If it is okay to be racist, that means you are good with people wanting to reestablish Jim Crow laws in America.

Yes, I'm ok with people wanting that and expressing it. I'd prefer if they didn't want this and if someone wants these people to change their opinions we need to work on our arguments, instead of hitting them over the head and punishing them in various ways.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

No it doesn't.

I once dated an Arab woman who thought that Arabs were racially predisposed to violence more than whites. It's a straight up racist opinion. But it has nothing to say about legal codes. At no point did she say anything about different laws for different races.

I know a Jewish guy who thinks that on average Jews are smarter than whites. Undeniably racism. Has nothing to say about legal codes. And we're still good friends. His opinion has not put a dent in our friendship one iota.

Wow... you responded to a post you didn't even read. I mean you quoted the text that addressed this, but didn't read it. "Blacks can be bigots, but not racists (in America)."

So you need to use better words, as "Blacks can't be racists" is based on the actual definition of the word. Blacks can be bigots, but not racists (in America).

What? Racism just means you think that certain personality traits are genetically inherited and are concentrated in races and that some races are better than others.

No, racism is systemic bigotry in the legal code. You are confusing bigotry with racism.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So what you mean is "is it ok to be bigoted or homophobic in this situation?" If it is okay to be racist, that means you are good with people wanting to reestablish Jim Crow laws in America.

Yes, I'm ok with people wanting that and expressing it. I'd prefer if they didn't want this and if someone wants these people to change their opinions we need to work on our arguments, instead of hitting them over the head and punishing them in various ways.

This is two-sided mouth talk. Because you are whining about people being pressured because of their opinion, but apparently are okay with people having positions for creating laws that would indoctrinate their bigotry, which is quite the bit higher magnitude of pressure being put on people.

 

[laughing dog]

Milo Yianoupolis was bullied into silence. He got his money from speaking at functions and he was deplatformed. He lost his income and went broke. There's more. Sweden has plenty of celebrity's who said something stupid in an interview which destroyed their livelihoods.

So what? Earning a living in a market economy means your income depends on satisfying the market. If the market does not like what you produce, your income falls. Seems to me your problem is with people's tastes and market economics.

If you think there is a some right to earn a livelihood by spouting stupid or racist or bigoted nonsense, then perhaps you should propose that the Swedish gov't provide income support for people who spout stupid or racist or bigoted nonsense.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Let's be real about Milo.

Milo was a powerful figure in the alt-right. He was a writer for Breitbart and had a huge following. He got mixed reactions from white nationalists, the most extreme of the alt-right because he said he was part Jewish. Some of them didn't like him. But generally, the alt-right liked him because he was so provocative and could weasel his way into identity politics using it to attack the left and the alt-right loved this about him. For example, he called his college tour "Dangerous Faggot."

Let's not forget that he led the attack against Leslie Jones so bad, she was so terrorized that she fled social media for a time and went into hiding. Talk about canceled...

It's true that a lot of colleges had protests (free speech) regarding Milo and fewer movements to disallow him from touring. However, overall, Milo was NOT deplatformed by the Left. He was deplatformed by the Right, by the market, and by business overall. His biggest mistake was making positive-like comments about PEDOPHILIA, not his Islamophobic, anti-feminist or other alt-right views.

His comments about pedophilia led to his book being canceled by Simon and Schuster. He also had to resign as a writer for Breitbart and had to make it look voluntary. Breitbart is alt-right, nothing to do with the left. AND conservative groups like CPAC rescinded their invitations and general alliance with him.

IF Milo had not gone over the top about his Libertarian views on PEDOPHILIA, then he'd still be a writer for Breitbart screaming about cancel culture, he'd be a successful author, and a popular speaker especially at Reich wing events, though there'd be a few colleges where he might not be able to go (maybe?? I don't even know...), there'd be more where he could go and cause controversy thus making a big name for himself.

 

[KeepTalking]

I don't think you're missing the context. You just decided at some point to have a private definition for force and have insisted that I use it in the same way. But that'll just lead to confusion IMHO. I'm going with the dictionary definition. I think this conversation provides the context needed. You seem to disagree.

I think we got tripped up on the whole force concept, since force can be both good and bad, depending on the result of applying the force.

We only became tripped up because you made the statement "Social pressure and public shaming is also force" in the context of force being bad. Then, after I said I did not agree with that, you later switched to a context in which "Social pressure and public shaming is also force" can be either good or bad. Had you said "Social pressure and public shaming is also force, but that kind of force is not necessarily a bad thing." I doubt that I would have disagreed with it, especially in the case of shaming. I would need to see an example of a context in which you think social pressure is being used as force in a bad way to see whether I agree with you or not. We are having trouble getting there, however, as you are refusing to acknowledge the problem with the way you initially presented your argument that "Social pressure and public shaming is also force".

The only people who speak freely today are those who have nothing to lose or are rich enough to not be sensitive to paying the high price.

I have things to lose, and I am not rich. I feel that I can speak freely today with regard to the topic at hand.

Good for you. But I hope you do acknowledge that there are people in today's society for which this doesn't apply?

Are you now backing off of your statement above? If I am an example of a person who has things to lose, and is not rich, then the statement "The only people who speak freely today are those who have nothing to lose or are rich enough to not be sensitive to paying the high price."

This is a problem with the way you are arguing in this thread. You make a blanket statement with no room for nuance, then when you are called on it and people disagree with it, you suddenly want to add nuance to the statement, without acknowledging that you were wrong in making that blanket statement to begin with.

Off the top of my head I'm thinking Milo Yanoupolis who got deplatformed. I find him vile and oppose everything he's ever said and what he represents. But I'm still defending his right to say it. That's a hill I'm willing to die on.

...

Milo Yianoupolis was bullied into silence. He got his money from speaking at functions and he was deplatformed. He lost his income and went broke. There's more. Sweden has plenty of celebrity's who said something stupid in an interview which destroyed their livelihoods.

By that token, I have been deplatformed because no one wants to pay me to talk about politics in public. I defend his right to say what he says as well. I do not agree that he has the right to be provided with a megaphone to say it, and receive a paycheck for saying it. I will also defend my own right to say that Milo is wrong, and that he should be ashamed of himself.

There's a reason I only share my opinions on anonymous forums online. I work as a manager in a senior corporation. I have dealings with important people in politics. I can't be honest and open about my beliefs. No matter what they are. It'd be a liability.

I use a pseudonym here because it's cool to do that, and at one point I felt that I did not want everyone to know I was an atheist. I have since gotten over that last bit, but I will note that it was religious intolerance that put me in that spot to begin with. I am sorry that you feel you have to hide your opinions due to rubbing shoulders with politicians. I am glad I am not in that position, and would never seek out employment that would put me in that position. Yours is a fear with which I cannot relate.

But you just said you can relate. At some point you felt you couldn't be open about your atheism. So you know the feeling. Replace that feeling with any opinion. Imagine a world where being right handed is shameful. I'm assuming you are right handed. Then insert the feeling that you had regarding your atheism.

I can't relate. It was my family I felt that I could not be open with about my atheism. I did not chose my family. I do have control over where I work and what I do, and I would not accept a job where I thought I had to hide my atheism to make a living. The same goes with my politics.