Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Since never. I had thought you were arguing that the statements that business will be harmed by Obama's reelection were coercive because they were false.
I guess there's not much point in continuing this argument, since we seem to differ on a very basic level: you think businesses shouldn't be allowed to tell their employees which candidate will be batter for the business, and I think they should be allowed to do so.
<><Our reasoning is consistent because one person is a position of actual power and ability to harm several others, and is actually engaging in that particular behavior noticeably enough that unrelated people are writing news reports on it. We have yet to hear of employees sending threatening, coercive letters to their employers, and we have yet to hear of unions doing the same. You really are drawing a false equivalency here, Trivialis. We are talking about what is actually happening right now, not about hypothetical scenarios. Give us an example of an employee trying to coerce an employer for political reasons and then we can have an actual debate.
IT IS NO ONE'S FUCKING BUSINESS WHO YOU VOTE FOR. And therefor it is NOT the employer's business to send people threatening letters. Or letters of any sort of political nature whatsofuckingever because all the employer needs to know is if you're competent enough to do the job you were hired for. They need to keep their political inclinations out of their employee's lives.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:39:29 PM by AceofSpades
@Fighteer
I don't get why 3 is any different from 4 when the person can outright quit.
Blackmail is only effective when the other person (in this case, employer) has no choice. It's hostage-taking. Why would case 3 be hostage-taking? The person is just letting his/her boss know in advance that he/she is going to exercise the right to quit.
The reasoning behind "1 and 2 are both coercion" is, a seemingly harmless act carrying a threat of intent is the same as a threat. That means if 3 is wrong then so should be 4, because you're still using workers' benefits (a business component) for a political gain. That's a no-no for business ethics, regardless of your position. But, if 4 is legal, despite having that intent of threat, then that threat is legal also. Resignation is a right.
Since you've brought up another scenario, let me present its counterpart:
"If X gets elected, I might personally get my [services] cut. This offends me, so I'm going to resign and completely disrupt my responsibilities even before any links are verified. Unless of course Y wins, then I wouldn't have to do that. You mad bro?"
edited 18th Oct '12 1:43:54 PM by Trivialis
Nevermind. -_-;
edited 18th Oct '12 1:46:32 PM by Enkufka
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry@Grizzly: tell them is one thing. Inform them they vote a certain way or theyre fired is another.
Its the difference between me saying "Vote obama" or putting a gun to your head and saying "Vote Obama or I kill you and your family"
One is a suiggestion. The other is a threat.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:45:56 PM by Midgetsnowman
@Ace of Spades
Whether or not something actually happens does not affect whether or not it's wrong. Does an "acceptable" employee-coercing-employer suddenly become wrong if it becomes a reality? No, it's been wrong all along, just manifested later.
Even if it's as you said, that still would mean workers have a right to say "this is looking bad for us", or to bluntly say "vote this way or quit", or outright quit. There's still no difference between a "remark" and a threat.
@Enkufka: "PEOPLE. DO. NOT. HAVE. THE. RIGHT. TO. FORCE. OTHER. PEOPLE. TO. VOTE. THEIR. WAY. "
This is all I'm saying.
All 4 scenarios I presented are this, so all 4 are bad.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:48:46 PM by Trivialis
Situation three involves one person have something to hold over another's head, that's why it's different. Like, they have company secrets they can sell to another company, and have just proven they're willing to break legal contract to do so. Simply saying you'll quit, while outwardly coercive, doesn't imply anything having other than your presence and skills taken away, which can be replaced by another person in a way company secrets can't once they're out. The first is an actual credible threat that can harm the employer financially or otherwise. The second isn't. The second is, in fact, a laughable and highly unrealistic move that very few people would actually do.
Actually, yes it does. It's called what we can realistically expect to happen. If it's actually happening, it's having real life effects on people. Real harm is being done. Hypotheticals don't matter when you're talking about real life politics and practices like this. Real people are being threatened here, and I don't give a fuck about hypotheticals when something is actually happening that needs to be stopped.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:50:09 PM by AceofSpades
What Enkufka said. At a certain point you have to recognize that abstract principles of free speech end when it fucks with people's livelihoods.
@Trivialis: #3 is coercion because you are in a position to commit actual harm to your employer's business. For example, let's say I'm the IT administrator of my company. I threaten to change all the passwords to gibberish unless my demands are met. That is extortion. I should go to jail for it. If you are not in a position to cause harm, then your threat is meaningless and your boss can and will fire you.
#4 is not coercion because it represents the collective right of a business' employees to organize to seek redress of grievances. However, it is ridiculous to do something like that in response to something that is not in your employer's control. "We go on strike if Romney gets elected" may or may not be ethically wrong, but it is fucking stupid.
And your last example is ridiculous. There is no way that your employer's individual vote will affect the outcome of an election to a greater degree than all of his/her employees. Now, a more rational scenario might be, "Stop giving money to <X> candidate whose views I disagree with, or I will quit." However, that's subject to #3 above, which requires that you have some kind of unique power in your organization to make the threat stick. Otherwise you're just blowing hot air.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:51:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"![]()
You're misunderstanding me. 3 is saying "I'll quit". 4 is saying "I might be in a bad shape", which according to the reasoning "intent of threat = threat", it's still implying "I'll quit". Either they're both acceptable (since quitting itself is also acceptable), or they're both unacceptable (obligation as a member of the business).
That's exactly the difference Grizzly is pointing out. The difference between (1) "I'll fire you" and (2) "I might be in a bad shape" which requires interpretation.
You're talking about harms; I'm talking about what's wrong. Hypotheticals are relevant when your reasoning asks for it. Fighteer asked for that when he introduced the flip side of case 3.
Don't dismiss hypotheticals as "everything that's not happening is automatically right".
Edit:
@Fighteer: Notice that you're treating 3 as a "significant sabotage" case and 4 as a "collective grievance" case.
I'm making no such distinction. I'm simply saying that case 3 is direct threat and case 4 is indirect coercion, with no regards to the status of significance. It's meant to be a direct parallel to case 1 vs case 2.
edited 18th Oct '12 1:59:14 PM by Trivialis
I'm not going to engage you in this further, Trivialis. You are determined to find reasons to conflate an employee's individual action with collective bargaining when they are substantially different. I've already said that if an employee quits or threatens to quit over a political decision, absent other factors like sabotage, there is nothing unethical about it.
edited 18th Oct '12 2:01:06 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@Fighteer
"I'm not going to engage you in this further, Trivialis. You are determined to find reasons to conflate an employee's individual action with collective bargaining when they are substantially different. I've already said that if an employee quits or threatens to quit over a political decision, absent other factors like sabotage, there is nothing unethical about it."
I'm not making that distinction. Where did you get that from?
Since you presented the flip case, all I did was present exact parallels to your comparison of 1, 2. And despite agreeing with you for the most part, I found your reasoning a bit inconsistent on the parallel side.
Why is it just so hard to admit that?
Edit: Moved to PM.
edited 18th Oct '12 2:54:44 PM by Trivialis
The important part was actually that paragraph I posted after it.
But, here's a quote from Fox News: “Declaring something an act of terror does not necessarily mean you are declaring it a terror attack.” —Fox News’ Megyn Kelly
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen Fry... it would be comical if people didn't take them seriously. Really, Fox News? This is the level of absurdity that you've been reduced to?
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"... fuck Jon Husted.
After receiving a court order (for the second time) to not restrict early voting, he is restricting early voting.
Very big Daydream Believer. "That's not knowledge, that's a crapshoot!" -Al Murray "Welcome to QI" -Stephen FryIndeed, fuck Jon Husted. Let's see him try to restrict voting from inside a prison cell.
edited 18th Oct '12 2:22:08 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"@ Fighteer: I wonder what your view of the British Co-operative Party
is? It's basically the Political Wing of the Co-operative Group
.
To quote from the British Political System page:
edited 18th Oct '12 2:26:33 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnThey represent the interests of co-operative retail stores? *blink* I have heard of co-ops and occasionally shop at them, but it's hardly anything I'm deeply familiar with. It seems that they enjoy many of the advantages of a labor-run organization but also have serious disadvantages in some ways. For example, I believe that Trader Joe's is a U.S. grocery chain that's run as a co-op. I love shopping there and they carry a wide range of alternative brands, but they don't invest a lot in things like checkout counter technology. I'm not sure how this is relevant to the 2012 elections, though.
I suppose it's an argument for greater inclusiveness of a spectrum of political interests in a parliamentary system rather than a FPTP, winner-take-all system, but we've pretty much discarded abandoning FPTP as a realistic possibility in U.S. elections for the foreseeable future.
edited 18th Oct '12 2:33:38 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^
You were mentioning about disliking businesses getting into Politics — I provided an example of a business doing so. If you're wondering why they're so close with Labour: the Co-operative movement and Trade Unions (who formed Labour) formed at about the same time in Victorian Britain, by a similar type of people.
edited 18th Oct '12 2:43:55 PM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling On

Now, the actual scenario:
edited 18th Oct '12 1:35:46 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"