Poll: 62% of Americans Say They Have Political Views They’re Afraid to Share
cato.org
cato.org
Not all views are equally valid. Some are antithetical to a free and equal society and are deserving of harsh criticism.
There’s nothing wrong with a society where people feel uncomfortable saying that they think their peers don’t deserve equal rights.
It's possible that the reason he donated was because he disagreed with the particular wording of the proposition as written, not that he thinks his peers don't deserve equal rights.
And for the tiny donation, he lost his job. He's unfit for employment in tech, it seems, unless he's the owner of the company. That is a chilling effect. Suddenly people who aren't perfectly in alignment with, again, the loudest voices, have to choose their every word (and donation) perfectly or risk losing their livelihood.
Consider that there are fiscal conservatives who think that we don't get nearly enough value from our tax dollars, so we should reduce taxes. Can they donate to conservative causes without losing their jobs?
Can you imagine the insanity if voting records got leaked?
Being a CEO of a large organization is not a human right. Part of the job is being the public face of the organization, and that means that, if you’re a CEO, you can lose your job if you say or do something stupid in your personal life. Everyone knows that when they sign up.
Brendan knew the stakes, messed up, and now has to face the punishment. Which is being the CEO of a slightly smaller organization.
Nobody said being a CEO was a 'right'. You're correct that part of being a CEO is being the public face of the company, and I agree with you that it's reasonable for the members to not want to be represented by somebody who is repulsive to them. Maybe something like an actual vote of confidence or vote of self-similarity is not out of the question.
But, we don't vote for this kind of thing, rather, people get run out town by a (sometimes literal) mob in the court of public opinion by, again, the loudest voices. And, because blood is in the air, they don't get support (quiet or loud) from all the people at the company who either agree with them or who just don't want mob rule to exist (because even though they're not socialists, or trade unionists, or Jews, they see that the wheel of "social justice" will eventually turn on them, too).
> if you say or do something stupid in your personal life
Easy with the name calling. I'm here taking the opposite position and you jump to the word 'stupid'. No need to get personal.
Okay, maybe you didn't mean "stupid" like "no right-minded person would have that opinion" instead of "it would be stupid, given the current political climate, to say this publicly"... but I think then you would be agreeing with me, so you probably meant the first sense.
Again, where is your example of someone getting run out of town by a literal mob? This guy is still incredibly wealthy.
While I agree that a CEO should be aware of their public image I think it's a sad commentary on the state of our society that public attacks and shaming have become the vehicle of protest now. This happens frequently with the constant push to de-fund voices by attacking their sponsors. Big corporations stand down, not because they agree ideologically with the vocal mob, but rather because they want to not become the next target.
How about instead of attacking the careers and livelihoods of those we disagree with, we instead support the ideas we do agree with?
Also, how can this not be a discussion of gay marriage? Aren’t you just saying that opposing gay marriage is not worthy of criticism?
The mob is literal, the town is metaphorical. His wealth has nothing to do with whether he was deprived of his job.
In your view, it seems, powerful people should get to say whatever they want, but if the little guy says “you're abusing your position of power, your platform, and your wealth” then he’s in the wrong.
How is that not totally against the principle of free speech?
Yes, people should get to say whatever they want. Yes, everybody should face consequences of what they say. I already said that it's reasonable for an organization to want their figureheads to represent them, and talked about one possible mechanism for achieving that.
You characterize the people who reacted in this story as "the little guy", but they clearly are in a position of power, and you can tell because they got him fired.
In what way was the CEO in this scenario abusing his position of power or his "platform" (I'm not even sure exactly what you mean by that word here)? He made those contributions as a private individual, not from the company's coffers.
As for "abusing" one's wealth, some people clearly do that (by bribing their way into political positions or into contracts or whatever), but that's not what's happening here.
I'm pretty sure elil17's idea of which views are "antithetical to a free and equal society" doesn't match my own, though.
Regardless of whether I agree that this is a good example, you're embodying the exact same problem the article is lamenting from the politically opposite side.
Since 2016 political speech especially conservative views are being seen more and more not like a politician stances but an all encompassing bigoted ideology regardless of the data and proof behind such stances.
While I personally haven't lived long enough to see a swing in the rights direction I feel like the left condemnation of everything on the right it's going to easily bite them in the butt eventually.
I bet its happened this way in the past.
Believe there is a difference between feeling and being? “Feel assaulted” by words is now described as “being assaulted”. “Feel like a woman” is now “is a woman” through some linguistic slight of hand by a) saying gender is how you feel and b) saying when you say man/woman you mean gender, not sex.
By redefining commonly used words those who wish to change society to fit their view have managed to get tons of people to silently go along because well, that’s what the words mean now.
Very first amendment- freedom of speech. How do you get around this? Classify everything as hate speech and “verbal assault”.
Playing the victim has become so fashionable lately, everyone is trying to jump in it. Black? You can go back to the time of slaves in the when no living remembers. Woman? Women are always victims and have no agency, regardless of the facts. If you have no agency, you can’t be blamed for anything. It used to be women could blame all men for everything. Since BLM, they aren’t allowed to blame black or Hispanic men. The list goes on.
Now we are left with just white straight men who have all the power and (only) evil in the world. Except it will crumble. As people gleefully engage in activities they once protested, those pesky cell phone videos make it onto YouTube. Right now it’s a bunch of Karens. Funny how that tries to get explained away. Soon you’ll see the rise in videos of bad behavior from the other protected groups.
The real death of this I think will be when more “white saviors” try to get in on the action and do more than say stupid shit on social media to score points. They’ll start to actively engage with the people they pity. If they do it for any length of time, they’ll realize these poor suffering babies are people, like anyone else.
I’m a minority and find it amusing when we’re described in such infantile terms. Date a few of us, get involved, and suddenly “oh you guys have so much family drama!” or “why do you make such bad decisions?” Hahaha welcome to the club. Stop talking about race and start talking about decisions, poverty, etc.
Yes poverty is talked about, but only allowed if you’re not white. If you’re black, you’re poor because of racism. If you’re white, without batting an eye, you’re designated white trash.
The reality here is that if you're a leftist, you may well be under the impression that people are in fact overcommunicating ever minor, pointless, faux-activist idea that pops into their head. If you're not a leftist, of course you're self-censoring constantly, despite how bold and idiotic the mob's ideas may be.
Is the idea because people get drunk and talk politics?
You should have said this originally. I can understand if this was some crusade he was pursuing, but nobody could infer that from your original post. Also, you should really consider how ironic it is, in a thread about people being afraid to express political opinions, that, when asked how not reimbursing alcohol is political, you responded with a hyperbolic analogy in a sarcastic tone to the effect of "we had this thing called prohibition" (you've since edited that comment, though the tone mostly remains).
This oppressive climate where opinions are not shared has no positives at all, zero, nada, zip, zilch. All it does is create suspicion, doubt and division where in other circumstances a few words would have broken the ice and allowed understanding and trust to grow. In a society where the meaning of words keeps on being changed so as to weaponise them and the wrong word at the wrong moment can get you fired, where the common history is being demonised, where shared culture is divided into ethnic enclaves which are only deemed appropriate for those of the 'correct' ethnicity... the outlook is bleak. This type of activism used to be limited to the most extreme corners of academia but it has escaped into the wild and is spreading like wildfire. The more it spreads, the more violent the reaction will be.
In Sweden we will eventually overcome our difficulties now that it has become so obvious that those who pushed the agenda were wrong. These people will not be held accountable, they will keep their jobs, most of them will act as if they had no part in the suppression of those with differing opinions even when confronted with hard evidence of their complicity. This is the way things work here, it is the way things have worked here for a long time - at least since WWII. What will happen in the USA when those who use Orwell's 1984 as a user manual lose momentum is up for grabs. The response better be measured and civilised or the gains of decades of civil rights work stands to be undone. The sooner those of sane mind of all ethnicities get together to call a halt to this madness, the better.
Get at it before it is too late.
We will not pick this answer, and, if we did, it would not be allowed.
"You are an Acceptable Level of Threat and If You Were Not You Would Know About it"
Almost nobody would disagree with that statement but I'm sure you know that. Suggesting that the majority on the left (aka "progressives") support the looting is extremely disingenuous.
It's plainly obvious what the real purpose of a comment like that is.
It's funny how you yourself have immediately labelled me as being a non-left having read the comment that I made. Our most urgent threat may be the right wing conservatives at this very moment, but sooner or later we will face a real reckoning with what we thought were our most outspoken allies. Be careful with how you use the term progressives, because thought policing and book burning is anything but.
a recent example would be an IKEA HR firing a bigot in Poland
people seem can't detach from the instance and see the bigger picture: workers have literally protested decades against getting terminated for opinion crimes, and now because in this instance society sides with the corporate it looks like we're immediately ready to throw away all our hard fought rights to let corporate fire someone for having the wrong opinions (especially since they could have just claimed the bigot word where harassment toward another employer and let justice so the work for them)
but mention the bigger issue on a discussion and see how fast the topic moves back to the instance and the commenter thrown into the pit with the far right anti LGBT bigots keywords of his view on the instance.