Religion The Fucking Left

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
He's not wrong though.
Funny. I'd come back to address it. @Wij's actually opened a door :)

The Holocaust was legal.
Yes it was. And Hitler wouldn't have been able to get away with what he did without a certain level of popular approval. We agree that legal <> moral. Never has been.

Lets say there was popular support in 1930's germany for jew-burning. Who'd be the man to stand up and say "lets not burn the jews" in front of an oppressive regime?

Parallels are difficult to draw - losing your job and being disappeared by the gestapo for not espousing the "culturally agreed policies or morality" aren't the same thing (but then I didn't bring up the Nazis or back the guy who did).

But if anything it completely rams home the need to protect people's ability to say unpopular things. I've repeatedly made this point (including in this thread):
You know, the "I detest what you say....." and "first they came for the communists...and there was no-one left to speak for me" yadda yadda yaddas...
So the Holocaust and Nazi Germany are actually great examples of why we need to protect unpopular speech and thought. Maybe they're the great examples.


So you've both scored own goals AND lost the argument . As per Godwin's law. :)
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
Funny. I'd come back to address it. @Wij's actually opened a door :)


Yes it was. And Hitler wouldn't have been able to get away with what he did without a certain level of popular approval. We agree that legal <> moral. Never has been.

Lets say there was popular support in 1930's germany for jew-burning. Who'd be the man to stand up and say "lets not burn the jews" in front of an oppressive regime?

Parallels are difficult to draw - losing your job and being disappeared by the gestapo for not espousing the "culturally agreed policies or morality" aren't the same thing (but then I didn't bring up the Nazis or back the guy who did).

But if anything it completely rams home the need to protect people's ability to say unpopular things. I've repeatedly made this point (including in this thread):


So the Holocaust and Nazi Germany are actually great examples of why we need to protect unpopular speech and thought. Maybe they're the great examples.


So you've both scored own goals AND lost the argument . As per Godwin's law. :)
No because your argument was that it was ridiculous that people could be called out for something that was legal. That was what I was responding to. Taking it to try to prove a different point that I wasn't even arguing is a bit silly.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
No because your argument was that it was ridiculous that people could be called out for something that was legal.
My argument was that people are losing their jobs over something that is legal. They can be called out on it all they like.


Look. The whole of the argument applies. You can pick sentences out and pull them apart and dissect them - but it's pointless. The whole of the argument applies.

It's NOT OK for people to lose their jobs because they tweeted support for a legal ruling by the supreme court. Anyone who says that speech is free in that context is, at the very best, being disingenuous.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
Why do you keep bringing up legal ruling like it makes any difference?
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,636
Funny. I'd come back to address it. @Wij's actually opened a door :)


Yes it was. And Hitler wouldn't have been able to get away with what he did without a certain level of popular approval. We agree that legal <> moral. Never has been.

Lets say there was popular support in 1930's germany for jew-burning. Who'd be the man to stand up and say "lets not burn the jews" in front of an oppressive regime?

Parallels are difficult to draw - losing your job and being disappeared by the gestapo for not espousing the "culturally agreed policies or morality" aren't the same thing (but then I didn't bring up the Nazis or back the guy who did).

But if anything it completely rams home the need to protect people's ability to say unpopular things. I've repeatedly made this point (including in this thread):


So the Holocaust and Nazi Germany are actually great examples of why we need to protect unpopular speech and thought. Maybe they're the great examples.


So you've both scored own goals AND lost the argument . As per Godwin's law. :)
If enough people had said "let's not burn the jews" and especially ones with influence, they might not have done it. But no one did and even then the Nazis knew they would say that if they knew it was happening, which is why they kept it a secret.

Your argument is based on the premise that all positions are equally morally valid; they are not. "Saying unpopular things" is not, and cannot be risk free. And once again, the state has not stopped him expressing his opinion, which is and can be the only protection of free speech. What private citizens choose to do with his opinion (so long as they aren't breaking the law by burning down his house or anything) is not the role of government, and nor should it be, because then you'd have to actively protect all kinds of horrible shits from the consequences of their actions.

And for the last time, if he'd been some private schmo on Twitter, he could have said what he liked and so called leftists would have ranted and raved at him and that would have been it. Its only because of his role as an agent of his company that the consequences are more severe, and sorry, that's why you get paid the big bucks; you give up your right to have personal opinions, risk free, in the public sphere. Now, there are circumstances where I completely agree with your position, and nobody should have their history from back when they were "private citizens" dug up for vilification years later, but that's a separate (but admittedly related) debate.
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
We're much closer @DaGaffer (but I'm no longer going to entertain talk of the Nazi's here as it was silly to go there in the first place):

Your argument is based on the premise that all positions are equally morally valid; they are not.
Morality is unprescribed and is what you make of it and is unequivocally a personal standpoint.

1) On a cosmological level there's no such thing as "morality". It's a human construct.
2) You only have to look at Islam to see a different and, in their opinion, equally valid morality. (In their opinion the correct morality).
3) Christianity has it's own morality - which leads them to believe that abortion is murder and no matter the nonsense, they think stopping the "killing of the unborns" is a moral right.
4) You and me think differently - that abortion, whilst not something to be "celebrated" (maybe some people do think that) isn't morally repugnant and affords women (and men) control over their own bodies and reproductive rights.

No morality exists in a vaccum. All moralities are born from personal stances. What is "equally morally valid" changes depending on your own personal morality.

I'm saying very clearly that it's undemocratic to structurally penalise people based on their sense of morality for simply expressing it. (With caveats - as some level of penalty is necessary for progress - but not job-loss level of penalty in most cases).

"Saying unpopular things" is not, and cannot be risk free.
You're repeating yourself on something I've repeatedly agreed with. It's the level and type of risk I'm debating. At some point the risks become so high that people stop freely expressing themselves. Where are these limits?


the state has not stopped him expressing his opinion, which is and can be the only protection of free speech
Hard disagree. When corporate actors, which are not individuals, start to have a controlling influence on what is the allowable free speech of humans then corporate actors need to be legislated against to protect human individuals right to express themselves.

When free speech laws were enacted corporate governance and the internet weren't things. Protections need amending.


What private citizens choose to do with his opinion (so long as they aren't breaking the law by burning down his house or anything) is not the role of government, and nor should it be, because then you'd have to actively protect all kinds of horrible shits from the consequences of their actions.
We must. We must protect "all sorts of horrible shits" because "horrible shits" used to mean gay people, not that long ago. "Horrible shits" used to mean kids born out of wedlock and their slag mothers. And horrible shits are sometimes just horrible shits. But our personal sense of morality is what defines a horrible shit.

As I've stated - I'm not saying we should have complete freedom of consequences (and I'm not talking about actions) - but we should be free to express ourselves and our protections from corporate censure prompted by the hands of the mob need to be beefed up.

Your point about him being a rich guy is irrelevant to the principle (although in this world, right now, you're 100% right and I've already agreed with you). But it's irrelevant nonetheless - because this censorious atmosphere is pervasive and having effects across society. And we can't pick and choose which we hate and which we don't hate - principled protections must be blanket to be fair.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
Toht of the Month could be a thing for FH here :)
 

DaGaffer

Down With That Sorta Thing
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
17,636
We're much closer @DaGaffer (but I'm no longer going to entertain talk of the Nazi's here as it was silly to go there in the first place):


Morality is unprescribed and is what you make of it and is unequivocally a personal standpoint.

1) On a cosmological level there's no such thing as "morality". It's a human construct.
2) You only have to look at Islam to see a different and, in their opinion, equally valid morality. (In their opinion the correct morality).
3) Christianity has it's own morality - which leads them to believe that abortion is murder and no matter the nonsense, they think stopping the "killing of the unborns" is a moral right.
4) You and me think differently - that abortion, whilst not something to be "celebrated" (maybe some people do think that) isn't morally repugnant and affords women (and men) control over their own bodies and reproductive rights.

No morality exists in a vaccum. All moralities are born from personal stances. What is "equally morally valid" changes depending on your own personal morality.

I'm saying very clearly that it's undemocratic to structurally penalise people based on their sense of morality for simply expressing it. (With caveats - as some level of penalty is necessary for progress - but not job-loss level of penalty in most cases).


You're repeating yourself on something I've repeatedly agreed with. It's the level and type of risk I'm debating. At some point the risks become so high that people stop freely expressing themselves. Where are these limits?



Hard disagree. When corporate actors, which are not individuals, start to have a controlling influence on what is the allowable free speech of humans then corporate actors need to be legislated against to protect human individuals right to express themselves.

When free speech laws were enacted corporate governance and the internet weren't things. Protections need amending.



We must. We must protect "all sorts of horrible shits" because "horrible shits" used to mean gay people, not that long ago. "Horrible shits" used to mean kids born out of wedlock and their slag mothers. And horrible shits are sometimes just horrible shits. But our personal sense of morality is what defines a horrible shit.

As I've stated - I'm not saying we should have complete freedom of consequences (and I'm not talking about actions) - but we should be free to express ourselves and our protections from corporate censure prompted by the hands of the mob need to be beefed up.

Your point about him being a rich guy is irrelevant to the principle (although in this world, right now, you're 100% right and I've already agreed with you). But it's irrelevant nonetheless - because this censorious atmosphere is pervasive and having effects across society. And we can't pick and choose which we hate and which we don't hate - principled protections must be blanket to be fair.
My point wasn't that he is rich is that he is a representative of his company at Board level, which is a very different thing to a regular employee. He can't divorce private citizen from agent of company, not in the US or UK anyway.

And you're trying to have it both ways here, is it the leftist mob or is it the corporations? Or is it the leftist mob controlled by the corporations and your tinfoil hat has cut off the supply of blood to your brain? Because here's the thing, I'm rather keen on the corporations being subject to the opinions of their customers (or the "mob" as you prefer to call them), and an agent of a company who espouses views or opinions I don't like? Yep, hard pass on buying their shit. I seem to remember an entire city taking that view based on some opinion or other at one time. Where was that now? It's on the tip of my tongue...
 

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
2,793
Well fuck my old boots - this circular, annoying thread just bores the shit out of me. I am off for a couple of weeks in Skirtland so enjoy yourselves but please try to be civil to each other, eh?
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
And you're trying to have it both ways here, is it the leftist mob or is it the corporations?
Come on m8. Corporations are running scared of the twitterati. And who's expressing outrage if you don't follow proscribed morality.

"I support the supreme court's decision".

🤷

Because here's the thing, I'm rather keen on the corporations being subject to the opinions of their customers
So am I.

an agent of a company who espouses views or opinions I don't like? Yep, hard pass on buying their shit. I seem to remember an entire city taking that view based on some opinion or other at one time. Where was that now? It's on the tip of my tongue...
If you print lies on your front page then it's the company saying you pissed on the bodies of your dead.

If amazon employs a shelf stacker who agrees wtih anti-abortion laws then it's not amazon's company policy. And I don't want to see him lose his job over it. It;'s disproportionate and undemocratic.

It's not a hard concept...
 

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Well fuck my old boots - this circular, annoying thread just bores the shit out of me. I am off for a couple of weeks in Skirtland so enjoy yourselves but please try to be civil to each other, eh?
Don't get eaten by a wild haggis, have a good time!
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265
Well fuck my old boots - this circular, annoying thread just bores the shit out of me. I am off for a couple of weeks in Skirtland so enjoy yourselves but please try to be civil to each other, eh?
Pics old bean :)
 

Jupitus

Old and short, no wonder I'm grumpy!
Staff member
Moderator
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 14, 2003
Messages
2,793
Ok, last post as I am totally off topic, but this is the beauty I'll be driving - she's hot, quick, a little old but so am I, I have named her 'Layla' (as in Clapton) .... she's a little pocket rocket !
 

Attachments

Raven

Happy Shopper Ray Mears
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
41,674
Ok, last post as I am totally off topic, but this is the beauty I'll be driving - she's hot, quick, a little old but so am I, I have named her 'Layla' (as in Clapton) .... she's a little pocket rocket !
Is there enough room for your hairdryer?
 

Gwadien

Uneducated Northern Cretin
Joined
Jul 15, 2006
Messages
18,422
If that isn't a mid life crisis car I dunno what is ;)
 

Hawkwind

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Jul 5, 2004
Messages
7,488
Paywall article but anything that starts with "far xxxx" is likely not worth the time.

On separate note The Lancet taking a lot of flak for using the BWV (bodies with vaginas) instead of women, female... in an article about menstration.


Was trying to find other links to the story but mysteriously Google has hidden them. They were there 3 hours ago for multiple other sites. Quite sinister, used the same keyword search.
 

Wij

I am a FH squatter
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
15,804
Paywall article but anything that starts with "far xxxx" is likely not worth the time.

On separate note The Lancet taking a lot of flak for using the BWV (bodies with vaginas) instead of women, female... in an article about menstration.


Was trying to find other links to the story but mysteriously Google has hidden them. They were there 3 hours ago for multiple other sites. Quite sinister, used the same keyword search.
Handy guide:

View: https://twitter.com/historywoman/status/1441714855178907651
 

Scouse

Dennis Quaid lover
FH Subscriber
Joined
Dec 22, 2003
Messages
31,265

Welsh Labour to press ahead with anti-libertarian overly-authoritarian plans that don't benefit people who've been jabbed despite winning a vote only due to Tory incompetence.

Personally, I think the Tories have played a blinder here - they're making Labour look like authoritarian asshats when everyone knows they couldn't do it if Tory boy had voted.

Way to lose votes, permanently.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom