Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Owlbread]

I seem to recall reading some of George Orwell's stuff from his days as an imperial policeman in Burma (then part of British India) and he talked about how all the officers dreaded having to deal with young Burmese monks in the street because they used to harass the officers as much as possible. The monks used to shout abuse at them, shout swear-laden insults, spit on them, that kind of thing. I can't say I blame them considering the circumstances, I'd probably join in with them, the point is the monks back then weren't shy of behaving in a way that may contradict the Western stereotype of a Buddhist monk.

[Loud Whispers]

It's not about forbidding ideologies, its about accounting responsibility to those who advocate ideologies.

Ah, it's not about forbidding ideologies, it's about punishing people for advocating ideologies.
The two are one and the same.

i, for example, would welcome it if a certain corporation/corporations put on a list and decides it no longer wants to hire people who advocate pro-abortions or equal gay rights.

For one, it's pro-choice, not pro-abortion, no one is advocating abortions they're advocating the choice to get one. Secondly I would be absolutely horrified if certain corporations decided they weren't ever going to hire anyone from a list of equal gay rights supporters. The fact that the list even exists in the first place only exists to intimidate people who have different opinions, to crush dissent - to then act on it and ruin their lives. I won't even comment on how foolish it would be, giving that power to a corporation; that power belongs to no one.

i am risking not getting hired there for something i think well worth it. advocating ISIS and not taking the responsibility for the effect such a support has (and it has a tremendous effect) is simply hypocrisy. it might lead to people actually taking the time to study what is it they are advocating.

And do you not see the perils inherent to this? It's all nice and well getting people fired for supporting ISIS up until the definition of extremist ideologies widens and widens to include anyone not towing the party line. It is a giant list full of people who you are to ruin because they hold ideologies which are "anti-freedom." Who decides what is worth destruction? It's the quickest way to ensuring a powerful dogmatic "truth" that to dissent from is to blaspheme. And everyone becomes subject to the truth makers.

[Loud Whispers]

Apart from the one hundred and thirty-eight page long one on the second page of the forum (which I think you missed the start of).

Def missed it

[Frumple]

Secondly I would be absolutely horrified if certain corporations decided they weren't ever going to hire anyone from a list of equal gay rights supporters. The fact that the list even exists in the first place only exists to intimidate people who have different opinions, to crush dissent - to then act on it and ruin their lives. I won't even comment on how foolish it would be, giving that power to a corporation; that power belongs to no one.

That power already belongs to businesses; shit like that happens with an incredibly irritating amount of regularity in the states. Most of the country it's entirely possible you'll be dealing with a prospective employer that will straight up fire or deny hiring you because of sexual orientation, and people getting shit on because of political opinions in this country is downright common in some areas. Swaths of this bloody country where admitting you're pro-gay equality isn't just a potential career killer, it's a goddamn existential threat. There's a reason careful management of your online presence is becoming increasingly advocated for people looking for work -- because what they say can and does cause them to lose jobs. And it's not just because of drunkposting when you were a young adult.

Frankly, vilanat's proposition would in a lot of ways just even things out a bit -- help prospective workers have a better idea whether or not the bigoted fucks they previously wouldn't have realized they were approaching are going to fire or reject them after the significantly greater resources the business has digs up something they didn't like.

Would still rather not see it and businesses repeatedly kicked in the nethers until they stop that shit, but still. Sort of thing he's talking about is already more or less happening, it's just a tool almost entirely in the hands of government or big business.

[Loud Whispers]

Making a list to fuck yourself over to balance fucking yourself over fucks yourself over. If we want to talk about the morals of mob justice and discrimination, I'm fucking against that too. Western nations have lost far too many talented individuals because of their beliefs and the world has suffered because of it, and I never one to live in a world where you can't disagree with the status quo and not suffer for it. Even that is one thing, but creating a list of people to excommunicate from society? Does no one else see how easy it is to abuse this power?

[Frumple]

Everyone sees how easy it is to abuse that power, because the power's already being freaking abused. The fucking is already happening. What vil's proposing would be moving toward equalizing it, or at least making it bloody transparent, instead of having it be a one-way road of buggery.

No shit it would be better if we stopped the nonsense entirely! Until that happens, I'unno about you but it'd be really bloody nice to know if the people I'm approaching for employment funnels funds into ideological groups that foster shit like domestic goddamn terrorism, like the whole pro-life bullshit, or the anti-LGBT bullshit, or the various hoards of xenophobic shits that have been inculcating violence against minorities since bloody ever, and are willing and able to shit on me for not doing the same. It'd be an improvement over the current status quo. Not nearly as much as not having the capability from either side, but we might actually be able to dummy up public info on political contributions and firing habits.

[Loud Whispers]

The people you'd be approaching for employment would be the ones curating, creating and using the list! THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT LIST IS, THAT'S WHO IT WAS MADE FOR

[WealthyRadish]

I think this is a similar question to the one that came up around people boycotting Mozilla over their CEO (in fact, I think the whole "making lists of people with X political belief" was specifically discussed too).

My impression is that people seeking techniques for advocating political positions they care passionately about can sometimes fail to see the need to respect opposing viewpoints, and as a result begin to resent political freedoms that can often be more important than the issue.

A common example would be the KKK getting police protection for their marches in the US. It's something I'm totally in favor of, not because of any support for the KKK, but because society so greatly benefits when those political freedoms are reciprocated among everyone (in fact, it's exactly how we got the very social progress the KKK in this example stands against). Making lists of people with a particular political belief seems to me to have absolutely no purpose that isn't punitive in some way, and that's why I will always oppose it. History is too full of examples where the seemingly mild act of making lists of opponents ended in tragedy.

Back on topic though, I agree with Eagleon completely here. I wouldn't quite say Buddhism is as prone to violence as other religions, but I would say that any belief system whatsoever could be distorted and used to justify violence.

ninjafrumple fakedit:
I totally agree that sexual orientation discrimination surrounding employment is very common here in the US, but I think you're conflating the issue of that discrimination with the making of lists. I don't think employers ever vindictively share lists of known homosexuals just to avoid hiring them, for example, though I do know that some will go through other invasions of privacy like online history (which is horrible).

[Vilanat]

The people you'd be approaching for employment would be the ones curating, creating and using the list! THAT'S WHAT THE CURRENT LIST IS, THAT'S WHO IT WAS MADE FOR

The current is a list of people advocating an organization that creates lists of people/companies to boycott for being israeli-jewish. they can't go and advocate the creation of a list of entities to boycott based on race/religion and get shocked when they get listed themselves. its actually the intellectually honest thing to do and when other companies begin using that list, the BDS will have a new list of companies to boycott. win-win, cards gets exposed or people start researching what is it they are really advocating.

[Loud Whispers]

The current is a list of people advocating an organization that creates lists of people/companies to boycott for being israeli-jewish. they can't go and advocate the creation of a list of entities to boycott based on race/religion and get shocked when they get listed themselves. its actually the intellectually honest thing to do and when other companies begin using that list, the BDS will have a new list of companies to boycott. win-win, cards gets exposed or people start researching what is it they are really advocating.

They boycott the companies for supporting Israel, which in lieu of Israel's adventures in Palestine is completely understandable.

Film-maker Rebecca Pierce first learned that she had been profiled on the site, when it highlighted her as “Radical of the Day”.

As a student at the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC), Pierce was part of a campaign to have the school condemn remarks made by professor Tammi Rossman‐Benjamin that some believe to be Islamophobic .

“The website is filled with racist stereotypes about our activism, and intentionally tries to tie a diverse non-violent student movement to antisemitism and terror,” Pierce said in an email to the Guardian. “I do worry about future employers potentially seeing this and getting the wrong idea, but I stand behind my activism and won’t allow racist extremists to intimidate me.”

Pierce accused Canary Mission of using “McCarthyist tactics” and employing “open racism”.

“They even went out of their way to mention my African American and Jewish heritage in my profile,” Pierce said. “This is clearly a website driven by deep hatred and prejudice, masquerading as some sort of ‘Canary in the Coalmine’ on antisemitism. Nothing could be further from the truth.”
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/27/website-targets-pro-palestinian-students-harm-job-prospects

Like I fucking said, these things would be used to silence people who have dissenting opinions. Because nothing says progress more than a list created by god knows who publishing their names, photos, heritage, majors, occupations and why you should hate them (of course, all dependent on trusting the list in the first place). Leftist hippy filmmakers are being called radicals here, David Cameron is calling tinfoil shitposters extremists there and everyone's a terrorist everywhere.
You normalize this, you will hand power to the elite from which you have no defence. This is the future you chose.

[Vilanat]

So if the list is according to your opinion its ok to have one?

[redwallzyl]

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it" is what your getting at. i hate it when people advocate discrimination and destruction of people of opposing viewpoints it violates the vary principle of free speech. it can vary easily be seen as the "right" way is the only way and opposition should be ruthlessly crushed for the good of humanity but "right" is completely dependent of the people holding the views. don't make double standards people.

[MorleyDev]

Freedom of speech is protection from government censorship, not ridicule and consequences from the people if they refuse to deal with you though.

You can't destroy their viewpoint. You can argue against it, and you can refuse to deal with those who hold it. A viewpoint can only truly be stopped by enough of the people not holding it, and those people being willing to argue against and refuse to deal with those that do that the viewpoint, such that it eventually gets removed from the collective consciousness of a society.

The government must be held to a higher standard than the people in this regard: The government cannot be left free to censor or discriminate. Regardless of private views, government must be above such things. And those who are not, those who seek to introduce such things into government (either via discriminating or censoring whilst acting in official capacity or attempting to bring in discriminatory or censorship laws), should not be seen fit to be in government by the people *regardless of the views of those people*.

And it gets a little big grey with public services like hospitals. So perhaps, "public services" is a better phrasing than "government".

And censorship doesn't include banning the encouragement of violence against a party (which is what actual hate speech is supposed to be), as encouraging violence is breaking a fundamental right of that party.

[Loud Whispers]

So if the list is according to your opinion its ok to have one?

For fucks sakes I am fundamentally opposed to the list existing no matter the god damn context

[Vilanat]

But you just excused the existence of the original listing by the BDS. so you are just against THAT (Canary mission) list, since its not according to your views, no matter its context, or are you against ANY list? because to me it seems like the context does matter to you (Naturally it does).