I've been consistently removing people from my facebook and twitter feed who disagree with me. Not because I don't want to hear their opinions, but because when I voice mine in response they are generally offended (I was usually just pointing out factual omissions). I needed to remove the temptation to engage with anyone in my social network who was prone to anti-intellectual discussions.
Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
41–50 of 89 posts
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#42I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…
his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
This is only accurate within the perpetually-expanding conception of "human rights" that many seem to assume is static.
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#43I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…
his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
This is hindsight bias. You can compare this to racism: back in the 18th and 19th centuries, racist and antisemitic people were in the overwhelming majority, and this only changed recently.
And yet, applying 21st century moral values to the 18th century is completely meaningless, as every historian who studied these time periods will tell you.
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#44I'm concerned that it's only going to get worse. Look at Brendan Eich, no matter what we think of Proposition 8, I think it's crazy that his support of a political position that was also supported by a very narrow majority of his fellow Californians could cause him to have to leave his job six years later. It's entirely possible that Eich could become a verb, like Bork. Any one of us could support one side of a conte…
his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out.
There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight.
I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist issue a fiat.
Some other states moved to legally recognize same sex unions via the legislative process and in those states, once the law passed, the fight was over.
Why is this distinction important? Because once we set the precedent that it's a "human rights issue" to be able to marry whomever you wish, what is to stop the FLDS church from suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages?
Once you accept the premise that marrying whomever you wish is a "human rights issue", there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#45Earlier quoted context omitted.
Here's what I don't understand - we're continually told that the Hollywood blacklist in the 40s and 50s was a terrible thing, a shameful episode in America's history. But how is it different? No one has a right to work as a screenwriter, actor, director, etc. I'm genuinely curious and not trolling, how is the Hollywood blacklist different from what happened to Eich, and why is one ok and the other something that need…
I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union mo…
The twist to the story is Prop 8 was voted into law by majority (slim for sure) of the state. Not saying I agree with or not (haha censoring myself there again), but he basically took a stand on a piece of law that was being debated. So I can't even compare this with the witch hunt against alleged communists in Hollywood in 50s.
Afaik, he did not force others under him to agree. Nor force the idea onto Firefox. It was guilty by association.
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'll risk more downvotes, I guess, what the heck. Here are the main differences I see: the power dynamic at play, the scale of the effort, and the availability of concrete proof of action. The Hollywood Blacklist was an attempt by studios and directors and some in the US government (those in power) to ban those underneath them based on, largely, unfounded allegations of Communist sympathies. It also had anti-union mo…
And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?
Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#47Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good ti…
I disagree. The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies. I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously g…
Is there any evidence of Brendan Eich engaging in any actual discrimination against anyone based upon their sexual identity?
To borrow your metaphor, you are not being bigoted against someone who kicks puppies. You are being bigoted against someone who isn't bigoted against people who kick puppies.
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#48Earlier quoted context omitted.
his support of a political position The problem is his support was for an anti-human rights issue, not just another "either side has valid points" political argument.
I was tempted to ignore this but my desire to combat this canard won out. There were more than two sides to the Proposition 8 fight. I happen to be neutral on the issue of whether or not same sex unions should be recognized by the government but I too supported Proposition 8. Not because I want to deny anyone anything but because the way to go about doing it should be legislative and not by having a judicial activist…
having a judicial activist issue a fiat.
legislative process and in those states,
In 2004, Karl Rove maneuvered "anti-marriage" amendments to voted on in many states during the presidential election season. So, the republican establishment riled up all the religious nutters to vote both for bush and, while they were there, why not vote your bible faith to restrict rights for actual humans too?
That's our legislative process—easily manipulatable, corruptible by riled up motivated voters who don't actually represent the majority.
So, we fix wrong decisions of the people with checks and balances. We dissolve the tyranny of the many and restore balance to the force.
suing because we don't recognize their polygamous marriages? there's no argument in favor of same sex marriage that doesn't equally apply to three or five person marriage.
Doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
Is there any downside to multi-marriage besides it just making you feel squicky?
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
You do realize, of course, that exact same argument goes for a lot of QUILTBAG folks, right? What happened to Eich should be considered at best an embarrassment to the otherwise progressive image of folks seeking sexual respect--at worst, it's a fine example of the same sort of bigotry they've fought against themselves, in some ways justifying many of the petty accusations made against their ilk. It was not a good ti…
I disagree. The strict definition of bigotry is viewing other groups with suspicion, hatred, whatever. So, yes, I'm okay with being bigoted against people who kick puppies. I think the more meaningful definition of bigotry within the context of social equality is an expression of power that flows from those with power to those without it. In this case, the one with power (rich white guy) trying to remove previously g…
Well original article was about social media effectively making people censor themselves. Let's forget about Prop 8 and etc. Do you agree social media is effectively making people self censor themselves?
Re: Social Media and the ‘Spiral of Silence’
#50Earlier quoted context omitted.
And yet both are meant to stifle/punish dissenting political opinions. Are the only differences really who is doing the stifling and how flimsy their evidence is?
Obviously not. The political opinions are objectively different even outside the bubble of current political correctness. One is about the form of government and the other is about human rights.
Having the government dictate where you live and work and what you can buy is very much a matter of human rights.
And, it's more so than bikeshedding over what terminology the government should use to talk about inheritance and visitation rights.
(Also, isn't having an elected government being viewed more and more as basic human rights these days?)