Supreme Court says First Amendment entitles web designer to refuse to do gay weddings

[The Nehor]

15 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Lots of examples of false positives in this article from Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/evangerstmann/2020/09/13/cancel-culture-is-only-getting-worse/?sh=5956de1f63f4

I know a lot about a few of those cases. Those summaries were a little light on some details that would make those involved a little less sympathetic as martyrs.

[JarMan]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

I was talking about the era. The Jim Crow laws were a desperate attempt to force the continuation of traditions of oppression and discrimination that were previously enforced by society. Now federal law was telling them to stop being bigots so they tried to preserve the status quo with bigoted laws.

Jim Crow laws came immediately after reconstruction. They are exhibit number one for why government shouldn't be in the business of managing who private actors do business with.

[Stormin' Mormon]

7 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I know a lot about a few of those cases. Those summaries were a little light on some details that would make those involved a little less sympathetic as martyrs.

Do they need to be sympathetic martyrs in order to elicit your empathy and compassion? Can't they just be complex, contradictory, messy people (like all of us)? 

 

[The Nehor]

37 minutes ago, JarMan said:

Jim Crow laws came immediately after reconstruction. They are exhibit number one for why government shouldn't be in the business of managing who private actors do business with.

Discriminatory laws are bad. Therefore laws against discrimination bad? Nope, not buying this ‘both sides’ argument.

[The Nehor]

27 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Do they need to be sympathetic martyrs in order to elicit your empathy and compassion? Can't they just be complex, contradictory, messy people (like all of us)? 

 

They need to not be dirtbag predators who punch down. Most of those who were deplatformed or “made famous” fell under this description and I have no problem with them losing their ability to spread lies and/or lost their livelihood.

[Stormin' Mormon]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

They need to not be dirtbag predators who punch down. Most of those who were deplatformed or “made famous” fell under this description and I have no problem with them losing their ability to spread lies and/or lost their livelihood.

Again with the othering. Again with the moral certitude.

This attitude right here is why cancel culture is so toxic. When you reflexively "other" another person, you then don't have to engage with the messy complexity that is human personality and imperfection. You can declare that a 30-second incident makes someone a "dirtbag predator."  You are then free of all social and spiritual obligations towards your fellow human being. 

It's lazy, jaded, and anti-social. It's lonely and isolating and irredemptive. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[bluebell]

14 hours ago, JarMan said:

You're making my point for me. We can't trust the government to tell us who to associate with. The cure is to limit the government's power, not give it more. 

Limiting government's power wouldn't have made any difference in the example I gave though. 

 

[ttribe]

2 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Again with the othering. Again with the moral certitude.

This attitude right here is why cancel culture is so toxic. When you reflexively "other" another person, you then don't have to engage with the messy complexity that is human personality and imperfection. You can declare that a 30-second incident makes someone a "dirtbag predator."  You are then free of all social and spiritual obligations towards your fellow human being. 

It's lazy, jaded, and anti-social. It's lonely and isolating and irredemptive. 

Speaking of moral certitude....

[Stormin' Mormon]

38 minutes ago, ttribe said:

Speaking of moral certitude....

And yet, I haven't tried to get Nehor fired from his job for being a misanthropic know-nothing. It's almost as if I'm willing to give him the same space to make mistakes that I give to myself.

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

Again with the othering. Again with the moral certitude.

This attitude right here is why cancel culture is so toxic. When you reflexively "other" another person, you then don't have to engage with the messy complexity that is human personality and imperfection. You can declare that a 30-second incident makes someone a "dirtbag predator."  You are then free of all social and spiritual obligations towards your fellow human being. 

It's lazy, jaded, and anti-social. It's lonely and isolating and irredemptive. 

Yeah, it was just a 30 second screwup to start throwing the Nazi salute at a rally. Or join an armed counterprotest spewing white supremacy. Or to scream at some hapless retail worker over how vile it is they have a Pride display in their store.

Not buying it.

[The Nehor]

50 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

And yet, I haven't tried to get Nehor fired from his job for being a misanthropic know-nothing. It's almost as if I'm willing to give him the same space to make mistakes that I give to myself.

This is a moral stance? I thought you were just lazy.

[Stormin' Mormon]

14 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Yeah, it was just a 30 second screwup to start throwing the Nazi salute at a rally. Or join an armed counterprotest spewing white supremacy. Or to scream at some hapless retail worker over how vile it is they have a Pride display in their store.

Not buying it.

I thought we were talking about false positives, and instead you cite examples of not-false-positives? Did you read the article I linked to, like at all? You are not describing anything remotely like what I cited as examples of false positives. 

A school security guard that asked not to be called the n-word got fired because he used the n-word in his request.

A professor of Chinese language giving an example of a filler word similar to the "uhm" we use in English, but said filler word sounded a bit like the n-word. Fired.

Another professor who stopped to listen to a pro-police rally, but didn't participate, didn't wave signs, didn't shout slogans. He just stopped and listened with curiosity. Fired.

An executive at Boeing who did get fired for something problematic and sexist, except that said problematic thing occurred 30 years prior to his firing.

My only moral certitude here is the certitude that others should be treated the way I treat myself.

[The Nehor]

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I thought we were talking about false positives, and instead you cite examples of not-false-positives? Did you read the article I linked to, like at all? You are not describing anything remotely like what I cited as examples of false positives. 

A school security guard that asked not to be called the n-word got fired because he used the n-word in his request.

A professor of Chinese language giving an example of a filler word similar to the "uhm" we use in English, but said filler word sounded a bit like the n-word. Fired.

Another professor who stopped to listen to a pro-police rally, but didn't participate, didn't wave signs, didn't shout slogans. He just stopped and listened with curiosity. Fired.

An executive at Boeing who did get fired for something problematic and sexist, except that said problematic thing occurred 30 years prior to his firing.

The argument being thrown around is we shouldn’t test at all because there are false positives. I disagree. Are there some false positives? Yeah. Are they as common as people claim? No. Are all of those you listed false positives? Nope.

If anything I think many have become too lenient towards bad behavior. Politicians doing things that would have led to resignation in previous generations and their own party booting them if they didn’t are tolerated and ignored or reduced to whataboutism. This is happening beyond the political sphere as well.

1 hour ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

My only moral certitude here is the certitude that others should be treated the way I treat myself.

I can’t adopt that approach. I don’t think I could be that cruel.

[bluebell]

17 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Of course it is a trainwreck but removing all forms of ostracism is a case of the cure being worse than the disease.

I agree that we don't need to remove all forms of ostracism, but I do think that society's current obsession with ostracizing for unpopular beliefs and past offenses is also worse than the disease. 

I think that things are getting a little better though.  The pendulum swung all the way to one side there for a while but it seems like people are starting to push back in good ways.  I've seen quite a few posts on instagram and facebook reels lately by gays and lesbians voicing their dissent at trying to cancel people by labeling them as homophobic anytime anyone voices disagreement over something a member of the lgtbq+ community has done for example.

I think that most people are rational and moral and not interested in ideological witch hunts, but unfortunately it's the vocal crazies that get all the attention.

[Stormin' Mormon]

38 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

The argument being thrown around is we shouldn’t test at all because there are false positives. I disagree. Are there some false positives? Yeah. Are they as common as people claim? No. Are all of those you listed false positives? Nope.

If anything I think many have become too lenient towards bad behavior. Politicians doing things that would have led to resignation in previous generations and their own party booting them if they didn’t are tolerated and ignored or reduced to whataboutism. This is happening beyond the political sphere as well.

I can’t adopt that approach. I don’t think I could be that cruel.

I guess I get hung up on the proportionality of cancel culture. Deplatforming? Yeah, whatever, I don't care. But non-affluent, non-famous people losing their jobs and being unable to get new employment because of the brouhaha surrounding their cancelation? Not cool.

And since I don't have, nor can I ever have, the full facts of a given case, I have no ability to mete out a proportional response. So, I'd rather err on the side of caution; erring on the side of compassion and empathy has rarely steered me wrong.

"Who am I to judge another, when I walk imperfectly; in the quiet heart is hidden, sorrow that the eye can't see."

Edited to add: I'm not saying there should never be social opprobrium for bad actors, just that the punishment should match the crime. I'm also saying that keyboard warriors are never in a position to measure out a proportionate response. 

Edited July 5, 2023 by Stormin' Mormon

[The Nehor]

44 minutes ago, Stormin' Mormon said:

I guess I get hung up on the proportionality of cancel culture. Deplatforming? Yeah, whatever, I don't care. But non-affluent, non-famous people losing their jobs and being unable to get new employment because of the brouhaha surrounding their cancelation? Not cool.

And since I don't have, nor can I ever have, the full facts of a given case, I have no ability to mete out a proportional response. So, I'd rather err on the side of caution; erring on the side of compassion and empathy has rarely steered me wrong.

"Who am I to judge another, when I walk imperfectly; in the quiet heart is hidden, sorrow that the eye can't see."

Edited to add: I'm not saying there should never be social opprobrium for bad actors, just that the punishment should match the crime. I'm also saying that keyboard warriors are never in a position to measure out a proportionate response. 

This is why I target Nazis and those who cruelly and maliciously punch down. There is no way I can give them anywhere near a proportional response so no risk.

[SteveO]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

This is why I target Nazis and those who cruelly and maliciously punch down. There is no way I can give them anywhere near a proportional response so no risk.

🥱

Touch grass

[provoman]

7 hours ago, bluebell said:

I agree that we don't need to remove all forms of ostracism, but I do think that society's current obsession with ostracizing for unpopular beliefs and past offenses is also worse than the disease. 

I think that things are getting a little better though.  The pendulum swung all the way to one side there for a while but it seems like people are starting to push back in good ways.  I've seen quite a few posts on instagram and facebook reels lately by gays and lesbians voicing their dissent at trying to cancel people by labeling them as homophobic anytime anyone voices disagreement over something a member of the lgtbq+ community has done for example.

I think that most people are rational and moral and not interested in ideological witch hunts, but unfortunately it's the vocal crazies that get all the attention.

Well put.

 

In my online experience, the vocal crazies on one side worship Karl Popper and sing his praise while spewing hate, encouraging and committing violence against all who will not conform to the de jour arm band campaign.

And crazies on the other side use their religion to do the same.

What you posted about rational and moral reminded me of a verse in the Book of Mormon that has always struck me as oddly worded; but deliberate

Moroni 7:3

3 Wherefore, I would speak unto you that are of the church, that are the peaceable followers of Christ, and that have obtained a sufficient hope by which ye can enter into the rest of the Lord, from this time henceforth until ye shall rest with him in heaven.

 

 

 

Edited July 6, 2023 by provoman

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, SteveO said:

🥱

Touch grass

Are you crazy? That is where snakes live you idiot!

[Tweed1944]

 Social media is becoming a dangerous place to express one's opinion. "I know where you live" is becoming something for one to easily  find out.

[The Nehor]

6 hours ago, Tweed1944 said:

 Social media is becoming a dangerous place to express one's opinion. "I know where you live" is becoming something for one to easily  find out.

 

[JarMan]

On 7/5/2023 at 9:50 AM, bluebell said:

Limiting government's power wouldn't have made any difference in the example I gave though. 

 

The example you gave was Jim Crow laws. The Supreme Court could have struck them down as early as the late 1800’s, but chose to uphold them. The court should have struck them down as an overreach of government. So, contrary to your claim, limiting government power would have made a difference—an enormous difference. Imagine that the Supreme Court had rejected these laws decades before the civil rights movement.

[JarMan]

On 7/4/2023 at 10:42 PM, The Nehor said:

Discriminatory laws are bad. Therefore laws against discrimination bad? Nope, not buying this ‘both sides’ argument.

You want to have it so the government can control private association, but only the associations you disapprove of. That’s like saying the government should only censor the speech you disapprove of. Once you let the government in the business of restricting certain freedoms, there’s no logical place to draw the line. The  result is that the line gets drawn based on the ideological preferences of those in charge, rather than on principle of freedom. That’s what the court did here by striking down Harvard’s admissions policy.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, JarMan said:

You want to have it so the government can control private association, but only the associations you disapprove of. That’s like saying the government should only censor the speech you disapprove of. Once you let the government in the business of restricting certain freedoms, there’s no logical place to draw the line. The  result is that the line gets drawn based on the ideological preferences of those in charge, rather than on principle of freedom. That’s what the court did here by striking down Harvard’s admissions policy.

I don’t buy your slippery slope here or that forcing businesses to not discriminate is somehow analogous to censoring speech.

Your brand of freedom sounds awful and oppressive. It allows Jim Crow era discrimination but doesn’t require any laws. You can just exclude whomever you like. It would be worse.

[Sara H]

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

I don’t buy your slippery slope here or that forcing businesses to not discriminate is somehow analogous to censoring speech

There was no discrimination on the part of the company, free speech and religious liberty are extremely important in the United States, and the court got all of this just right. 

6 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your brand of freedom sounds awful and oppressive. It allows Jim Crow era discrimination but doesn’t require any laws. You can just exclude whomever you like. It would be worse.

The concept of freedom encompasses the idea that individuals are free to exclude anybody they choose. Because the child's mother is a stripper, the Bidens have chosen not to acknowledge their seventh grandchild. This decision has led some people to accuse the Bidens of being cruel. Does the grandchild have a constitutional right to be involved in the family and to have a seventh stocking hanging on the fireplace at the White House during the Christmas holiday season?

 

Edited July 7, 2023 by Sara H