But still, it's frustrating how many people who supposedly pride themselves on their incisive intellects refuse to even consider that there might be something going on besides "political correctness". This Wondermark cartoon captures the dynamic for me:
Like, here's someone who was fired for saying someone else shouldn't have been fired: http://www.gamerevolution.com/manifesto/turtle-rock-communit...
And it makes me pretty uncomfortable when people express "fear of being attacked for doing something that's okay", and other people turn that into "fear of being attacked for doing something that's not okay", and attack them for it.
Maybe there aren't a lot of employers around who want to hire someone who promotes the view that "bigotry is OK," but surely there's at least one.
You've also turned a defense of a person into a defense of their views. You've turned "someone shouldn't be fired for bigotry" into "bigotry is okay". That is not reassuring either.
Or just "bigotry is OK, leave this bigot alone" is something someone should not be fired for?
As it happens, I'm okay with Donald Sterling being fired. I'm not okay with Josh Olin being fired for saying Donald Sterling shouldn't have been fired.
Would you support me being fired, for saying Josh Olin shouldn't have been fired?
As Popehat writes, freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences. There's an important question of what consequences should or can legitimately flow from speech. But when this "people shouldn't be scared to express opinions" line gets trotted out only to defend white guys, it's a tell. The nominal principle might be freedom of speech, but if the only people defended are the privileged, the actual principle is maintenance of societal privilege.
I can see your argument, here. I disagree with you, but that's not what I want to get at here.
What I want to get at is this: it's one thing to be scared of making racist jokes. It's another thing to be scared of expressing opinions like "Donald Sterling should not have been fired".
When people say "I'm scared to express opinions", and then you attack them "ha ha, look at the white people complaining that they're afraid to make racist jokes, how sad for them" - and then you also say that it's okay to fire people for the opinions that they say they're scared to express...
I don't have a polite term for this.
What I amsaying is that when the "freedom of speech" flag only gets hauled out for pro-bigotry straight white guys, I think it's not really about freedom of speech but instead defense of privilege. If defenders of free speech want to convince me they're serious, they'll be just as vigorous in defending unpopular opinions of people not in their demographic.
That may even be you, in which case, congrats. But unlike you, I don't think it's unconditionally bad that some people are afraid to express opinions because they may face social consequences for them. E.g., if some of the Donald Sterlings of the world are now afraid to express their bigotry, that's ok by me. And if some people are afraid to publish something because they aren't sure whether or not it's bigoted, I also have a hard time seeing that as bad. That seems like a fine opportunity for them to consider their opinions before publishing them.
In fact, I think that's what most people do. The only thing that's different is that straight white guys now have to do the same sort of self-managing that everybody else has always done, because they're now slightly less insulated from the consequences of their actions.
I disagree with some of what you're saying, and I agree with other bits of it. But I strongly disagree with the thing that you're doing and not even acknowledging.
Are you trying to paint me as some kind of tyrant here? Who said anything about obligation? Feel free to ignore me, feel free to talk about whatever you like. Meanwhile, I will feel free to point out when I don't like the things you say.
Like so: it is a shitty tactic to pretend you're talking to me, to reply as though you have a reply to what I said, and thus to obscure the fact that you're presenting no defense for your actions.
I don't know if this is malice or incompetence on your part, but it's bullshit.
It's not my job to address whatever hobbyhorse you've ridden in on, one I still only find half comprehensible. HN discussion is a recreation for me, one I do on my terms. If you would like to make dealing with you my job, feel free to book me at my consulting rate, $300/hr, cash in advance. I have open slots starting in mid-January. Otherwise, please march back on out of my mentions. Thanks.
What I do ask is that if you choose to reply to me, you reply to the things that I actually say. Instead, you repeatedly chose to say things which sounded like replies, but weren't. You tried to hide your lack-of-response - first, by talking about something unrelated to what I said, and second, by being all "I don't need to talk about what you want to talk about". Of course you don't! But if you're not going to talk about it, you don't get to pretend you replied to me.
But while you choose to interact with me, I am free to point out when you're violating conventions of discourse.
I am not entitled to your words, and you are not entitled to my silence.
These things make me want to push back and do the opposite of what you want, just to annoy you.
However, very well: I will not reply to you again in this thread, even if you choose to reply to me.
I don't intend to deliberately avoid replying to you in future.
I was saying that a lot of success is due to chance, and that a lot of life events are due to chance. This got people some people saying that what I was saying was horribly depressing. The guy then proceeded to lecture me that my attitude was what was letting me down in something that I never did, and was irrelevant anyway. And that 'I may not have intended it, but that my actions are causing misery' (because I did apologize to people that saying that they were horribly depressed by me saying that life has chance in it, because I felt the need to be conciliatory).
That is what happened when I tried to be honest and disagree with someone spouting feel good bullshit or whatever else made him look good. A complete frigging cesspool.
If I hear someone expressing a view that I dislike, I'm well within my rights to do any or all of the following things: a) stop associating with this individual b) let them know that I dislike the view they've expressed.
Choosing to do both a) and b) is a normal social response, and the individual that finds themselves expressing views that go against the cultural majority will find themselves in an awkward position. If this view being expressed is worth expressing, then unfortunately the individual will have to endure hardships in order to get the message out and convince the masses ... much like MLKjr being willing to go to jail to communicate the idea that civil rights were for all.
So if someone wants to share racist jokes, then toughen up that skin and let the vitriol fly! They should be proud of what they are and let everyone know ... if it's a worthy viewpoint, they'll find others will rally to their cause; and if not, they'll find themselves awkwardly cast out by their social circle (or at least, their social circle's kids/younger generation).