There are consequences to doing things people don’t like. There are plenty of legal things I can do that will get me fired. I’m arguing that you can say what you like and you won’t go to jail, but I don’t have to employ you. Likewise, there is probably some group that sheared your views who may want to hire you because of them.
If you hate black people and progress it daily then you probably won’t keep job at The NY Times, but there are plenty of people that share this view and I’ve seen their publications around although not with the circulation of the Times.
There are a lot of unpopular opinions. Sardines on pizza are not nearly as popular as they once were. But only a few that are so abhorrent that you lose your job or social standing.
There are consequences to doing things people don’t like.
Exactly the attitude people used to justify their keeping Jewish and Asian people out of their clubs. Exactly the attitude people used to keep homosexuals out of certain positions.
In a society that's really free, having opinions should not be the thing which is penalized. In a society that's truly free, you don't have people going around actively looking for thought criminals to persecute -- which is the actual case in certain parts of SF. Instead, people just say, "It's a free country," and associate elsewhere.
In a society that's really free, you don't have people using systemic and economic power to force other people to speak as you'd want them to. In a society that's really free, you don't have people using systemic and economic power to scare people into shutting up. That's not freedom, that's horror, and it's precisely the sort of thing that can go around and come around to bite the people who were once doing it to others. Those are precisely the tools bigots and hateful people used to use to suppress people different from themselves. Resorting to those are among the key signs that one is on the wrong side of history.
In a society that's really free, you have some people who find a genuinely better way, and other people join them out of their own free will. We used to know that in the US. We were proud of it, and the world admired us for it -- For the sheer intellectual generosity and triumph of the human spirit it represented. Now, our own younger generations have no clue, and just wish to cram their own opinion down the throats of people they other and despise.
I've seen it firsthand. You don't convert people with such disdainful and hateful tactics. You convert people by living with them!
>Exactly the attitude people used to justify their keeping Jewish and Asian people out of their clubs.
This is not the same thing. Being Asian is not something you "do". Homosexuality is the better analogy. And that's why we've made specific laws to exempt race, religion, gender, and now often sexuality from consequences. There are arguments that these things are different -- and except for religion now largely considered immutable aspects of personality that don't negatively impact the lives of other people.
In a society that's really free you can decide who you want to associate with. And that's our general principle in our society. That's why this is the default position that we take as a society. But we have called out very specific instances where we think that this can result in a tyranny of the majority or those in power, and we've made laws to exempt them.
It sounds like you want new laws so that we shouldn't be able to apply any consequence to people we disagree with? We should just always live with them, regardless of how vile we find their views? Do you really live this?
>In a society that's really free, you have some people who find a genuinely better way, and other people join them out of their own free will.
That is naive and not the point. Everything is not about "finding a better way" to do something. Some of it is simply if person A says they want to kill everyone I love then I probably want to let people know about this and if they happen to own a hamburger restaurant in my neighborhood then I probably don't want to eat there. Should my best friend eat there? I'd prefer they not. You're saying I don't have the freedom, in your free society, to say that I think this is a bad person and I think before your money flows to them I think you should know how bad they are.
It seems like you're trying to have your cake and eat it to. You want to be able to offend people and do things they find morally reprehensible, which is fine. You're free to do so. But then you want to limit other people's ability to react to it.
>We used to know that in the US. We were proud of it, and the world admired us for it -- For the sheer intellectual generosity and triumph of the human spirit it represented. Now, our own younger generations have no clue, and just wish to cram their own opinion down the throats of people they other and despise.
Have you studied US history? This is laughable. Blood was shed for much of the progress in this country. Fortunately, morality has tended to bend toward progress, but its because there were people strong enough to fight for groups that were marginalized.
If you hate black people and progress it daily then you probably won’t keep job at The NY Times, but there are plenty of people that share this view and I’ve seen their publications around although not with the circulation of the Times.
There are a lot of unpopular opinions. Sardines on pizza are not nearly as popular as they once were. But only a few that are so abhorrent that you lose your job or social standing.