It is so hard to have an honest conversation at this point. So hard that you need to form or join a club of people on the internet in order to do it without fear of persecution (though freedom from persecution on the internet, in general, is never guaranteed). That is not to say that the majority of everyday people cannot say what they want to an extent, but you can watch this freedom eroding quickly. I have a suspicion that I have lost several opportunities myself based on something I have said on social media, a blog, or in person. Irregardless of how skilled and proficient I was at the job, or that I was the most qualified person applying. Having a generally shitty attitude, disagreeing with someones religious beliefs, or being politically opposed to something, shouldn't be a problem as long as you are doing your job and not using free_speech as an excuse to harass someone. Note: We already have laws for that.
Even though I don't have direct knowledge of this, I have spoken with several HR people that have assured me that Facebook, Twitter, etc., are some of the first places they go when deciding whether or not to hire you and when they are looking for a reason to fire you. This is unspoken but you should obviously expect this, especially when you are speaking to tech companies.
Is this really the type of community we want to live in? Where everyone and anyone can be persecuted for what they say, wasn't that one of the key reasons for creating a country free of tyranny? Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech seem to be the central foundations that the United States was built on. They are arguably the two freedoms most coveted by constituents of more restrictive nations and the most quoted by self-proclaimed patriots and nationalists.
Recently Bill Maher was defamed (if that is possible) and protests planned for his keynote at UC Berkeley. A petition was created with the goal of stopping him from speaking at Berkley. (though as of now it looks like the keynote will continue as planned.) Yeah, go ahead and let that roll around in the brain for a minute, it took me a while to come to grips with it as well -- I immediately looked up at the address bar to see if I was on the Onion. A liberal being potentially protested by perhaps, arguably, the most liberal college in the nation (other than Reed that is, though I wouldn't exactly say Reed is liberal perse.) because of something he said. So wait, what you are saying is -- at a university, a place of idea exchange, where everyone should be accepted based on what they have to offer intellectually, where peer review and being wrong about a topic signifies actual discovery and learning -- someone is endanger of being excluded because of their ideas?
To answer your internal question, yes, I was just as offended when they did it to Ann Coulter. Yes, she is an idiot and yes, she does have the IQ of a slightly brain damaged individual, but she has the right -- nay...nay, a responsibility -- to be that ignorant voice. I have never laughed so hard as when I have observed Ann Coulter try and pass her subversive racism off as an valid point. Not only is it fun to listen to, but it is especially fun to retort against. This is basically a default truth when concerning right wing lunatics, particularly the ones on talk radio.
The person at Berkley that is screaming for tolerance is the same person that is being intolerant of others thoughts, and the most disturbing bit, few are brave enough to tell them they are wrong -- at-least publicly. Just because you are offended doesn't mean that the other person doesn't have a right to have that opinion. I don't agree with the clan, but I don't want them silenced. Have you ever seen a clan member try to debate with the most remedial of the black intellectual community, now that is entertainment.
Maher has been complaining about religions for several decades now. This is not along the lines of anything that he hasn't said before -- and even if it was, that is what the freedom of speech is meant to protect.
In relation to the corporate world, there has been a reality show created to trick people into giving the most honest feelings possible on camera; Undercover Boss. This show does degrade at about episode number two into a sea of marketing non-sense. The more you see the more you want to put a gun in your mouth at the mere thought that advertising, marketing, network people, and the CEO's on the show will go this far in order to make there company look good. "[Money] is a powerful drug!" That is not to say that it doesn't work, but that shouldn't be the measure that we use to decide whether something is ethical or not -- but that is a different topic. Although this is a conclusion expected by the more cynical among us, the show itself does pose some interesting questions: Does the boss no what is really happening in his business, will the employees speak the same way to the boss as they do to their co-workers, and what will the boss do about all this. No, No, and nothing really, as you could have guessed.
I experience it directly when I design for clients. When you are designing a website or a product for someone, many customers are worried about saying something that will hurt your feelings as the designer creator (though many aren't worried, and almost seem to take pleasure in it.). Nothing hurts the design process more than a lack of honest feedback. This is not to say that the customer will know how to interpret the technical aspects, or that their concerns will always be legitimate -- though if something is wrong, I want to know about it at the earliest point possible. Even if that means we have to renegotiate some-part of the contract, or just re-communicate some points. It is better to know sooner, as it is going to be much harder and more costly to do change it later in most circumstances.
This is also a problem in education at public schools -- meaning elementary though high school -- where speech that is not approved is severely punished, documented, and often causes chronic problems for the student regarding post-secondary education, graduate school, and future employment. Is criminalizing our children's speech really necessary to live in a pleasant society? Or does it simply make things far less pleasant than they could be, while not really providing the reformation promised? I guess that depends on what side of the coin you are on. When you are offended, one just wants the other party punished, and seldom do people care about what core reasoning led to the act of vengeance itself -- just so long as it is carried out as brutally and swiftly as possible. Regardless how these same policies will effect them when the shoe is on the other foot. At that point people individually complain about things being unfair, never seeming to realize how much of a hypocrite they are.
At some point we need to make a list of things that you can't say, jokes you can't write, music you can't like, opinions you can't have (publicly), movies you can't watch, and subjects that are off limits -- or we are really walking in the dark with the subjectiveness of it all.
This overreaction to what people say is the same as having criminal statutes that are not written down, and then arresting people for breaking them. Life is hard enough without piling on dynamic, irrational laws in addition to the current demands for compliance we are already suffering through.
This is similar to burning witches at the stake -- except for the whole "being burning" bit; small detail. Irrational persecution, perpetuated by the majority is exactly what our style of government, more precisely the constitution and bill of rights, is designed to protect against. Ironically, it seems as though irrational group think is the current methodology by which we determine law, along with personal, political, commercial, and public policy. Perhaps we should take an approach based on facts, as opposed to being irrational and reactionary.
references and related:
Bill Maher & Berkley
Even though I don't have direct knowledge of this, I have spoken with several HR people that have assured me that Facebook, Twitter, etc., are some of the first places they go when deciding whether or not to hire you and when they are looking for a reason to fire you. This is unspoken but you should obviously expect this, especially when you are speaking to tech companies. Is this really the type of community we want to live in? Where everyone and anyone can be persecuted for what they say, wasn't that one of the key reasons for creating a country free of tyranny? Freedom of religion, and freedom of speech seem to be the central foundations that the United States was built on. They are arguably the two freedoms most coveted by constituents of more restrictive nations and the most quoted by self-proclaimed patriots and nationalists.
Recently Bill Maher was defamed (if that is possible) and protests planned for his keynote at UC Berkeley. A petition was created with the goal of stopping him from speaking at Berkley. (though as of now it looks like the keynote will continue as planned.) Yeah, go ahead and let that roll around in the brain for a minute, it took me a while to come to grips with it as well -- I immediately looked up at the address bar to see if I was on the Onion. A liberal being potentially protested by perhaps, arguably, the most liberal college in the nation (other than Reed that is, though I wouldn't exactly say Reed is liberal perse.) because of something he said. So wait, what you are saying is -- at a university, a place of idea exchange, where everyone should be accepted based on what they have to offer intellectually, where peer review and being wrong about a topic signifies actual discovery and learning -- someone is endanger of being excluded because of their ideas?
To answer your internal question, yes, I was just as offended when they did it to Ann Coulter. Yes, she is an idiot and yes, she does have the IQ of a slightly brain damaged individual, but she has the right -- nay...nay, a responsibility -- to be that ignorant voice. I have never laughed so hard as when I have observed Ann Coulter try and pass her subversive racism off as an valid point. Not only is it fun to listen to, but it is especially fun to retort against. This is basically a default truth when concerning right wing lunatics, particularly the ones on talk radio.
The person at Berkley that is screaming for tolerance is the same person that is being intolerant of others thoughts, and the most disturbing bit, few are brave enough to tell them they are wrong -- at-least publicly. Just because you are offended doesn't mean that the other person doesn't have a right to have that opinion. I don't agree with the clan, but I don't want them silenced. Have you ever seen a clan member try to debate with the most remedial of the black intellectual community, now that is entertainment.
Maher has been complaining about religions for several decades now. This is not along the lines of anything that he hasn't said before -- and even if it was, that is what the freedom of speech is meant to protect.
In relation to the corporate world, there has been a reality show created to trick people into giving the most honest feelings possible on camera; Undercover Boss. This show does degrade at about episode number two into a sea of marketing non-sense. The more you see the more you want to put a gun in your mouth at the mere thought that advertising, marketing, network people, and the CEO's on the show will go this far in order to make there company look good. "[Money] is a powerful drug!" That is not to say that it doesn't work, but that shouldn't be the measure that we use to decide whether something is ethical or not -- but that is a different topic. Although this is a conclusion expected by the more cynical among us, the show itself does pose some interesting questions: Does the boss no what is really happening in his business, will the employees speak the same way to the boss as they do to their co-workers, and what will the boss do about all this. No, No, and nothing really, as you could have guessed.
I experience it directly when I design for clients. When you are designing a website or a product for someone, many customers are worried about saying something that will hurt your feelings as the designer creator (though many aren't worried, and almost seem to take pleasure in it.). Nothing hurts the design process more than a lack of honest feedback. This is not to say that the customer will know how to interpret the technical aspects, or that their concerns will always be legitimate -- though if something is wrong, I want to know about it at the earliest point possible. Even if that means we have to renegotiate some-part of the contract, or just re-communicate some points. It is better to know sooner, as it is going to be much harder and more costly to do change it later in most circumstances.
This is also a problem in education at public schools -- meaning elementary though high school -- where speech that is not approved is severely punished, documented, and often causes chronic problems for the student regarding post-secondary education, graduate school, and future employment. Is criminalizing our children's speech really necessary to live in a pleasant society? Or does it simply make things far less pleasant than they could be, while not really providing the reformation promised? I guess that depends on what side of the coin you are on. When you are offended, one just wants the other party punished, and seldom do people care about what core reasoning led to the act of vengeance itself -- just so long as it is carried out as brutally and swiftly as possible. Regardless how these same policies will effect them when the shoe is on the other foot. At that point people individually complain about things being unfair, never seeming to realize how much of a hypocrite they are. At some point we need to make a list of things that you can't say, jokes you can't write, music you can't like, opinions you can't have (publicly), movies you can't watch, and subjects that are off limits -- or we are really walking in the dark with the subjectiveness of it all.
This overreaction to what people say is the same as having criminal statutes that are not written down, and then arresting people for breaking them. Life is hard enough without piling on dynamic, irrational laws in addition to the current demands for compliance we are already suffering through.
This is similar to burning witches at the stake -- except for the whole "being burning" bit; small detail. Irrational persecution, perpetuated by the majority is exactly what our style of government, more precisely the constitution and bill of rights, is designed to protect against. Ironically, it seems as though irrational group think is the current methodology by which we determine law, along with personal, political, commercial, and public policy. Perhaps we should take an approach based on facts, as opposed to being irrational and reactionary.
references and related:
Bill Maher & Berkley
- http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-campus-free-speech-debates-of-the-1990s-are-back-unfortunately/382173/
- http://www.mercurynews.com/education/ci_26825336/cal-chancellor-bill-maher-keynote-invitation-will-not
- http://jonathanturley.org/2012/10/14/the-death-of-free-speech/
- http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/australia-features/9187741/the-slow-death-of-free-speech-2/
- http://neighbornewspapers.com/view/full_story/25928341/article-Guest-column--Freedom-of-speech-is-not-politically-correct?instance=all
