The issue, as with most things, is in the details. Proponents of these kinds of measures will often ignore that the process of coming to an outcome is usually worse than the outcome. As long as the ideal is met, what’s a few casualties.
Take for example, our Australian friends. A priest down there decided to distribute material against the gay marriage vote down their - as his religious beliefs would dictate. Under hate/discrimination laws this man was sued by gay rights activists and I assume had his name dragged through the mud by the mob in the process (I don’t believe the material was derogatory).
So an atmosphere of fear to stand up for your beliefs is created.
On the other hand, no doubt damage can be caused by speech.
I think it then comes down to principles and if you are American and believe restricting power is a core principle, then those are the tradeoffs you accept.
Basically what I’m reading is that it’s a constant balancing act between rights. We have the right to free speech, but at the same time, this right encompasses all things.
The ONLY thing that should be limited in my opinion, to keep the way of the First Amendment, is death threats or anything threatening or pointing to death or killing of a certain group. We’ve seen what radical kindred spirits can do, and I don’t think this interferes with American rights like that anyway.
Honestly, our rights a lot of times reach a point where it’s a trade off. For example, the Fourth Amendment protects us against searches and seizures, yet thousands of Americans go through airport security, building security, etc.all the time. This is more complex, but I guess the same principles still apply.
“Source” demands are the pigeon defense and wholly ineffective when you can go Google something yourself. They are an admission the story damned your point of view.
If you don’t know what a pigeon defense is, Google “playing chess with a pigeon” and look at the pictures.
I did google it, I just didn’t find it. Hence asking for source.
I would pay any amount of money to hear a logical reason that this story damns MY point of view. Seriously. Have a swing at it and I’ll write you a check
The assumption is that, if you demand a source it means you must disagree with the article which therefore explains your doubts about it’s veracity. In other words, we only doubt that which we don’t want to believe to be true. It’s almost like the opposite of confirmation bias.
It’s not always the case however as some of us do have a healthy skepticism about things regardless of how much we want to believe or disbelieve. Some of us, myself included, have to provide sources or fact check as part of our jobs or the result of our education. It just becomes a habit to not believe or disbelieve things at first exposure. Anyone who has read Spinoza knows what I’m talking about.
I ask because I was interested in seeing the outcome of the situation. Also, given the little details provided, I was interested in some context. I honestly couldn’t give 2 shits about persecution of religion over any other metric, but I’d be shocked to see that priest was forced to compensate (ie, lost the suit).
I’m not skeptical that what strongman said actually happened, I just don’t read chapters 4 and 7 and write my review of a book. Making decisions and coming to a conclusion while intentionally not looking at all the information seems strange to me.
But then again, I’m still just waiting for Jewbacca to explain how it refutes my point of view. I’ve got a check to write
That of course is another reason why the idea of asking for a source does not mean you’ve been triggered. Sometimes you just want to get more information.
Ironically, posting “source?” In response to something is a biproduct of my generation, not his. I always laugh when people think they understand a concept and very very clearly don’t. Like Congress with Facebook.
It’s one of the reasons I do my best to avoid painting with broad brushes (obv guilty at times myself). It just opens you up to being hilariously out of touch and forces you to make guesses (calling them assumptions is far too generous).
Fair enough. I read the post in a vacuum. I apologize.
I do, however, read “source, please” as the most obnoxious and least effective thing a person can say. I read it as “I don’t want to believe this so I going to impugn its validity.”
While this was clearly not your purpose, a much more cordial approach would be “I can’t find this story. Can you post the link?”
Henry Ford tried this already. His $5 a day pay came with conditions. The employee had to live out certain conditions, (no smoking, no liquor in the house, for instance).
Needless to say this was a horrific abuse of power and a suppression of rights.
You can show them, perhaps how it’s functionally paradoxical. As soon as they start to speak, tell them to “Shut Up!” or some politer form if necessary. The point is don’t let them speak. And then when they finally get frustrated that you will not let them speak, then say ‘gotcha!’.
The second you want to stop any “kind” of speech, stop someone from speaking and see if they like it. Because if I have to shut up, so do you. It’s then only our personal power that gives us rights, not inalienable, but determined by power.
“I have more power, so I can speak, you have less power, you cannot speak.” ← That is the distillation of restricting any speech by power of the government, you have removed inalienable rights and redistributed rights by power and you can only get power by supporting the group that’s in power.
Well, you have your wish. Contrary to popular belief every amendment has exceptions. Terroristic threat or speech that can cause immediate fear or harm are not covered under the First Amendment.
Remember though as important as free speech is, you also often get what you pay for. A lot of it is crap.
And nobody ever stopped. The company I’m referring to is a billion dollar business and successfully implemented a “no nicotine” workplace (to the best of their ability ofc). The suggestion I proposed was allowing people to smoke but to group them with other smokers such that the non smokers weren’t forced to carry them
There’s no “was.” Every company that offers insurance benefits exerts behavior control over their employees.
All insurance that exists today operates on a method of behavior control