Yes. For example, very few people in SV can openly say they are going to vote for Trump.
> the larger the audience and concurrency of engagement, the less people censor the them selves
Yes, people don't censor themselves when they are in majority. For example, those who live in SV, and support gay marriage and BLM, they can throw insults without repercussions.
The weird thing is that up and down this thread, you can get the feeling that people are bigots, but they feel "oppressed" because they can't openly state those feelings in the public square or at work.
Cool, let's rephrase. If you want respect don't admit to being prejudiced against the way people are born. Being prejudiced against choices people make is completely fine.
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences. I'm as free to call you an idiot and boycott you as you are to say idiotic things. It actually is illegal to talk about tianamen square in china. You'll be arrested.
> Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences.
Yes it is; that's (most of) what "freedom" means. By your logic, if I would shoot you if you leave your house, then you would still be free to leave your house, 'just' not from the consequences.
Edit, a more proximate example: if the ministry of love will kindnap and torture you for criticising the government, your logic would hold that this does not violate freedom of speech, so long as they do not preemptivly prevent such criticism.
Of course it is trivially correct for the most part because people have opinions, but the concept of freedom of speech directly addresses this.
> Freedom of speech is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation
You don't even need to read more than 200 words and people using this phrase seem overly interested in the retaliation part through social excommunication. Bigotry in its original form.
> This catchy phrase is catch 22. Negative consequences of freedom mean there is no freedom.
That's something of a misnomer. In the case where the government (as in China) will visit consequences upon you for your speech limits freedom.
But others using their speech to express their displeasure with your speech does not.
Do you see how that works? If your peers disagree with you and express that, it's not limiting freedom, it's giving the same freedom to everyone.
I do believe that it's inappropriate (note the word I use here, as it has a specific meaning and implication) to target someone's professional status for a real or perceived disagreement (assuming that those disagreements are not relevant to the target's professional duties).
That doesn't make it illegal, just petty, vindictive and in bad faith. None of which limits anyone's freedom to express themselves.
There's a big difference between legality and social norms. Just because it's legal to do something, doesn't mean it's a good idea.
Freedom became an empty word once US turned it to plastic.
People always lose some freedom in any social interaction.
If you treat any such compromise as "no freedom" than you'll be left with no "freedom".
This whole dichotomy is just stupid and abused because of historic American politics, the word has lost all meaning.
Frame it in something not political: Imagine there was some taboo or social norm that said the only acceptable favorite color was green. If you publicly said your favorite color was something other than green, you should expect to be fired from your job, your family go hungry, and other similar consequences. Are you really free to have any favorite color you want? Technically, yes. Practically, do you have that freedom?
Can you find me the law that says it is illegal to talk about Tiananmen Square in China? I'd love to read it.
What actually happens is that when you talk about it, you lose your job, etc. Rarely does the government step in. Which, and correct me if I'm wrong, sounds like what you're advocating as "free speech".
The Great Firewall and Social Credit system are both run by the government and definitely penalize this behavior.
Of course there's no law explicitly saying "you can't talk about Tiananmen Square" because that law would be talking about Tiananmen Square which is the opposite of what they want.
You can definitely talk about it. How else would people know not to talk about it? The behavior that the government penalizes is advocating action against the government.
But people don't talk about it. It's enforced socially. That's my point. You don't talk about Tiananmen Square, you don't gawk at Falun Gong protesters, etc. Even many Chinese expats act like this. It's just something people know not to do because they don't want to be seen as a bad person and lose friends, jobs, and so on.
That happens completely outside the government's influence.
Again, I'm fine with being bigoted against peoples choices. If you make bad choices you can be damn sure I'll won't respect you. I can't accept being bigoted against the way someone is born.
I fully accept that free will isn't real. I also fully accept my ability to change the utility maximizing decision by not respecting people who don't respect others because of the way they were born.
I use "choice" in its commonly accepted definition for simplicity. We can get into semantics if you'd like. Determinism doesn't mean it's impossible to change the "choices" people make. It means it's impossible to change your own utility functions which cause the "choices". Society can still effect peoples "choices" by punishing them because that will change the outcome of the pre-determined utility function. Incentives are everything.
Because Trump supported white supremacists?
Because Trump has a proven history of treating women like objects?
And these are not allowed ps of the tongue, these were systematically repeated sentiments.
If you choose to support him, you support these things as well.
As far as women, framing Trump as a big meanie who says mean words totally ignores what he and his administration have actually done for women in the aggregate.
> Our nation has created more than 7 million jobs since the 2016 election — and women have filled over half, or more than 4 million, of those vacancies
> The unemployment rate for women stands at a minuscule 3.2%, and last September reached its lowest level since 1953
> And as the unemployment rate has declined, so too did the number of women in poverty, decreasing by 1.5 million in President Trump’s first two years in office
The victims of sex trafficking are primarily women and children
> Worldwide, there are 40.3 million victims, with 75% women and girls and 25% children, according to The International Labour Organization
> Trump signed the Abolish Human Trafficking Act, which strengthens programs supporting survivors and resources for combating modern slavery
> [Trump] signed the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act which tightens criteria for whether countries are meeting standards for eliminating trafficking
> Trump also signed the Frederick Douglass Trafficking Victims Prevention and Protection Reauthorization Act, authorizing $430 million to fight sex and labor trafficking, as well as the Trafficking Victims Protection Act, which establishes “new prevention, prosecution, and collaboration initiative to bring human traffickers to justice.”
> since President Trump took office in January 2017, there have been nearly 12,470 arrests for human trafficking, according to arrest records compiled by investigative journalist Corey Lynn, and over 9130 victims rescued. Compare that to the 525 arrested in Barack Obama’s last year in office
Yes. For example, very few people in SV can openly say they are going to vote for Trump.
> the larger the audience and concurrency of engagement, the less people censor the them selves
Yes, people don't censor themselves when they are in majority. For example, those who live in SV, and support gay marriage and BLM, they can throw insults without repercussions.