Race- Privilege, Relations, Racism, etc.

edited 9th Dec '16 10:08:03 AM by LeGarcon

You can either change your opinions, change your job, or keep your damn mouth shut about it. What you can't do is demand that other people ignore the opinions you've expressed.

edited 9th Dec '16 10:14:10 AM by NativeJovian

I'm not American, so I don't give a flying fuck about your constitution. I'm arguing about what should be.

If people express their views on the job or in a public function, getting fired can (and should) be a consequence. What I take issue with is people getting fired or expelled for things said and done in private. What I take issue with is the gutting of the private sphere.

Now this is just straight out bullshit. A though does not equal an action. This is not even a case of real intent to do something discriminatory. This is just holding an opinion, and we all hold negative and positive opinions about different things and people we encounter in our daily lives. People should be allowed to hold opinions, even hateful ones, as long as they don't act on those opinions and go on their way to hurt other people.

And to even begin to think, that me having a though "wow, I really hate this guy" in my head and me deliberately broadcasting this though to a wide audience, are the exact same thing, is disingenuous to say the least.

This is the problem though. We're not punishing an action here, we're punishing a thought. Making his opinion public would be an action, but this choice was made for him.

But he did keep his mouth shut. He didn't express his opinion publicly, that's the whole point! People are allowed to hold and express opinions privately without being punished for it. What are we going to do next? Punish people for complaining about their bosses because one of their friends posted their opinion in Facebook? This is just insane...

edited 9th Dec '16 10:38:40 AM by Paradisesnake

Facebook is not a private place. Facebook will never be a private place. If you post something online, there will always be risk involved. I don't see why this isn't obvious. You post anything online you need to make peace with the possibility of it getting elsewhere. The people who leak it might be terrible people, or they might not be, depending on what you did/said.

Because what you're DOING with your privacy MATTERS.

I thought they didn't text on facebook. They texted in a chat. Someone else took a picture and posted that on Facebook.

But according to the complaint, someone from the group took photos of the texts and posted them to the high school’s official Facebook page. Someone also shared the images on Twitter and tagged Tucker, the principal.

It's like recording a private discussion and then making it public.

Once again that's still committing something to text.

Also here's the issue, it's still something harmful.

Even if it's just your private opinion, here is what it can impact:

Who you choose to hire. Who you vote for. How you treat the people around you. How you choose to interact with racism in public. Who you choose to fire. Who you choose to condone and condemn. etc. etc.

When your opinions involve someone being subhuman, that MATTERS. It's not just a private opinion.

That's certainly an argument that can be made. But then, racism should become illegal. That you can be expelled or fired for something legal done in private should not be a thing.

Racism is illegal in many ways. You can't fire someone through discriminatory means. Hate crimes exist.

behold. They do a bunch of things to stop the actions, and still allow a person to exist.

While it's probably better placed in the privacy thread, I believe the Internet (and in this particular situation, Facebook), seems to be in a strange mid-point between private and public space. And I'll withdraw from the conversation since I'm still somewhat undecided on whether it was right or wrong to expel them.

Oh, so now we're treating private texts as the same as making a public post? Do you also think it's the same thing if I say something to you privately and if I go to a public gathering and yell that same opinion in front of everyone? Come on... simply writing something in text doesn't change its meaning, audience, or intent.

No it doesn't if you don't act on those opinions. I don't understand how the basic concept of opinion can be so difficult for people to understand. I can have the opinion that vegans are annoying and pretentious, yet still acknowledge that I have to have a vegan option in my restaurant menu. It is just an opinion.

edited 9th Dec '16 10:55:47 AM by Paradisesnake

And how exactly can you prove someone doesn't act on those opinions? Studies show that even people who don't espouse racist views will have some layer of subconscious prejudice that they aren't aware of. The idea that someone who HAS those views doesn't act on them in any level is just not really feasible.

Veganism is not on the same level as racism. It never will be. One involves the systematic mistreatment of an entire group of people. You can't compare that to a dietary restriction/choice.

Also they did act on those views! They told someone they had them! Talking to people is an action. Especially in a group.

And the fact is if you say something that can be concretely proven, via video or text, then it's much different than the spoken word. what you jot down can be permanent and not able to be disproved. Things you said are hearsay.

edited 9th Dec '16 10:58:05 AM by MrAHR

Racism is illegal in many ways.

But not the way they displayed it. Otherwise they would also have faced legal repercussions.

Sure. And they didn't. So I don't see what the issue is. Something that can lead to illegal things in a company, and the company stopped it prematurely. That's what companies should do to make sure that say, discriminatory hiring does not happen, as opposed to waiting when it DOES happen and dealing with the lawsuit.

edited 9th Dec '16 11:00:49 AM by MrAHR

Precrime punishment by private coorporations. Hello Cyberpunk.

Alternatively, it's called "companies fire who they think will cause them problems."

Companies fire people all the time. And yes, that includes preemptively if they are doing things that could ruin the image of the company, or something to that extent, so long as it doesn't involve discriminatory hiring/firing.

That's actually how Hooters gets away with it. So long as they hire men in other positions, they can hire the women they want because it's their "brand." Now that's kind of skeevy, but at the same time Hooters hasn't reinvented their brand in ages and are no longer the juggernaut (as other types of those restaurants have risen in popularity) so I have no issue if capitalism swallows them whole.

edited 9th Dec '16 11:13:20 AM by MrAHR

Are you seriously advocating for actual, concrete thought policing? This discussion is just all kinds of messed up...

Yes I can. Both are cases of a person holding an opinion, on which they do or don't act. It's not a one-on-one, 100% proof analogy, but it still works. Also, I have a hard time seeing how people expressing private opinions is somehow adding to your "systematic mistreatment" of minorities.

What is this, a paper RPG now? They expressed a private opinion privately. It was not an act of hate aimed to hurt other people. Better yet, there wasn't even any intent of doing that. It was just people discussing their opinions, not in a very pleasant manner, sure, but it was still done in private.

edited 9th Dec '16 11:16:35 AM by Paradisesnake

"It's your private matter until it becomes public. Then it's public, by definition. If you want something to remain private, then it's your responsibility to keep it private"

that....sound awfully close to the same response dudebro make when nude leak to the internet "Well, maybe you should be carefull someone else could do this, action have consequence so boo hoo, deal with it"

"That's why I don't think "but it was private" is a reasonable excuse for racist behavior."

but is privade, really your main diference here seen to be "but something is good and the other is bad", it cant run that way in how much a aceptable target it is

Also, something like this didnt happen before with Gawker and Hulk hogan?

...no? I was stating that to assume someone never acts on racist behavior is fundamentally misguided, because we have proof that's not true.

One opinion involves the systematic mistreatment and dehumanization of human beings. This is not equatable to what you eat.

And it adds because when you express it, you are spreading it to other people, who either are supported in THEIR bigotry, or grow to think it's not "that" big of a deal, and grow desensitized to the mistreatment and dehumanization of human beings.

There are some faint historical examples of implementing severe restrictions of freedom in the clumsy pursuit of anti-marginalization. You can find them if you squint hard enough. However, one is going to be hard pressed to find a broad, far reaching, rigorous historical precedent for totalitarian thought policing as a result of any social justice advocacy, and I'm always worried about people who insistently believe otherwise.

If anything, it's quite the opposite. For example, major advancements in surveillance and information recording technology were made during the Nixon-era COINTELPRO operations being conducted against black civil rights activists, labor reform advocates, Vietnam war protestors, feminists and the like.

Personally, I believe everything Mr AHR said on the last page is really all that needs to be said on the matter.

edited 9th Dec '16 11:26:10 AM by Aprilla

No, I said you can't punish people for simply having private racist opinions, to which you countered with saying that you can't know whether people act on their racist views. So do you have an argument or not?

So? You are allowed to express your opinion with people who share a similiar opinion, this is the core of the right of freedom of speech. As long as no one is spreading hate speech publicly, or trying to get people to commit hate crimes, or doing something other discriminatory, no one's getting hurt.

edited 9th Dec '16 11:28:58 AM by Paradisesnake

And policing what people say in private to each other is not totalitarian thought policing how?

edited 9th Dec '16 11:30:23 AM by Antiteilchen

I'm quite certain you missed my point.

So am I. Hence my asking.

It's not like it matters anyway. Just because something doesn't have a precedent doesn't mean it can't happen at all.