|
| Thread: Open Discourse: Beyond Freedom of Speech |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 4 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:16 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 12:17, 22 May 2014.
|
I understand that being a CEO, you're the face of the company, and as such, there are prerequisites other than strictly technical knowledge. But these prereqs should be clearly pointed out in the contract on time.
The Mozilla guy donated against gay marriage in 2008. He was made CEO six years later. Why?
It'd be his fault if his contract said, "I accept my responsibility as the face of a multinational company operating mainly in the Western world and aimed at a multicultural audience etc etc and will therefore abstain from exercising some of my rights of free speech in relation to whatever may harm the company's image..." and he then openly opposed gay marriage. But the way it happened, it was the fault of whoever put him in that place. It's not a question of whether they should've kept or fired him - they dun goofed either way. They put a politically unqualified man in a politically relevant position.
This goes for my stance in general. I'm a supporter of keeping your word, which translates into respecting a contract. If your initial contract says you qualify for the job, and then they suddenly add new required qualifications, they either ought to give you the opportunity to qualify (for instance, if they add "Knowledge of Java programming", they should allow you a period of adaptation) or - if that's impossible - compensate you (if they add "JUDEN VERBOTEN").
Of course, that's a matter of the contract you signed. If you signed one that says they can fire you whenever they like for whatever reason, well, there's really not much anyone can do about it. But businesses that offer such contracts can generally simply be boycotted by well organized labour syndicates just like Mozilla was boycotted by LGBT activists and that should - theoretically - pressure them into complying. Or, rather, the voters pressure the state and the state introduces labour laws and regulations.
Goes without saying that this is all extremely basic, and things can deviate from it heavily due to a thousand reasons.
____________
"Let me tell you what the blues
is. When you ain't got no
money,
you got the blues."
Howlin Wolf
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 12:58 PM |
|
|
Baklava said:
I'm a supporter of keeping your word, which translates into respecting a contract.
Even if it wasn't explicitely written down, I might add.
Imo - and I suppose we agree - the most fundamental foundation for a social community.
Which means, I acknowledge that we agree in a very fundamental way, that has - for me - something to do with personal honour and trust.
That only as a slight deviation from the topic.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:27 PM |
|
|
Somewhat on the lines what Bak said. As an individual you should have nearly unlimited freedom on speech, but as a representative of a company you should understand they want to make money and hence if you give statements to the public which harm the company you ought to expect getting fired.
____________
"These friends probably started using condoms after having produced the most optimum amount of offsprings. Kudos to them for showing at least some restraint" - Tsar-ivor
|
|
watcher83
Supreme Hero
Child of Malassa
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:32 PM |
|
|
That also depends on the field the company works in.
e.g. - the only electricity supplier in my country is e-on, if tomorrow the german chairman would state that he likes whale meat, although all romanians wouldn't agree to killing whales, what would their choice be, live in the dark?
____________
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 01:44 PM |
|
|
masterlearn said:
You seem perfectly aware of their point of view of the situation.
I can say "YES" to their right to demand it should not be done.
It boils down to the same RESPECT,which is the fundament of our CoC.
HC is someone else's private site and he can apply whatever CoC he wishes to. It's like voluntarily joining a club with a list of conditions. It's similar to the contractual situation Baklava explained above.
The country you live in can not be compared to it, especially if you were born into it and didn't choose to immigrate yourself. Restricting expression of freedom according to everyone's subjective and endless sensitivities would not result in the peaceful harmony you expect. It would end up in an oppressive regime and an encumbered cultural environment. Liberal arts would specifically suffer. Just compare the totalitarian regimes of the world and the democracies that protect freedom of speech.
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 02:10 PM |
|
|
artu said:
Restricting expression of freedom according to everyone's subjective and endless sensitivities would not result in the peaceful harmony you expect.
How do you conduct a peaceful harmony seems to be your personal view of it.
What I am talking about is something different-and I agree with the members that wrote it here-you should JUST THINK A BIT about what you say and write,BEFORE actually saying and writing it down.
Do you think that your responsibility to predict the concequences of your decision to speak and write IS a form of oppression?
One other point I am trying to make-banning these sorts of hate crimes would be not effective,because the reasons stay and the crime continues to be commited.It just makes the risk for those,who do it,to become higher.
Thinking and trying to predict the consequences are a way of PREVENTION.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 02:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 14:55, 22 May 2014.
|
ML, are you trolling? I ask
Quote:
For example, do you think Muslims who outrage because some caricature of Muhammed was published in Denmark are justified in their actions and their demand that it should not be allowed? For the artist, who is not a Muslim, Muhammed is simply a historical figure just like Napoleon or Atilla The Hun and he can be drawn just like any one of these people. According to the Muslims, it's an expression of hate and an insult on their religion because you can never show the prophet on a picture.
You reply:
Quote:
I can say "YES" to their right to demand it should not be done.
You are not suggesting it would be better and polite, if the artist is "responsible and that he predicts the consequences of his decision to speak and write." You are suggesting that he should be silenced because his work irritates some people. (Not that any artist HAS TO create politely...)
During the making of The Godfather (a movie you really love, if I remember correctly), many Italian-Americans protested the movie, complaining it made Italian-Americans look bad and associated all of them with the mafia. Should the film makers have said, "well, let's not offend our Italian citizens, it's just a movie after all."
Maybe, you should be just a little bit consistent in your posts and learn what coherence is before recommending people to JUST THINK A BIT in caps.
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 02:52 PM |
|
|
artu said:
During the making of The Godfather (a movie you really love, if I remember correctly), many Italian-Americans protested the movie, complaining it made Italian-Americans look bad and associated all of them with the mafia. Should the film makers had said, "well, let's not offend our Italian citizens, it's just a movie after all."
I can attest to that, some times when I was abroad I was approached by some people as associated with the mafia, especially since I'm from the core, Sicily.
But I shrugged it as a joke even if I knew some were serious.
I watched some parts of it and liked it , even if it made me in the eyes of someone a gangster.
I think it shouldn't be a crime to hate or disrespect, I think that since I'm free I should be able to satirize on groups that may be offended, the law shouldn't prosecute me, those who were offended should show their concern and if they are so exaggerate even send me death threats.
____________
Noli offendere Patriam Agathae quia ultrix iniuriarum est.
ANTUDO
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 02:57 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I watched some parts of it and liked it
So, you didn't watch the movie from the beginning to end?
|
|
Neraus
Promising
Legendary Hero
Pain relief cream seller
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 02:58 PM |
|
|
Unfortunately not, but i'd love to see the rest.
Sure, it can give a bad impression but it should be taken as it is. A good movie.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:26 PM |
|
|
Baklava said:
businesses that offer such contracts can generally simply be boycotted by well organized labour syndicates just like Mozilla was boycotted by LGBT activists and that should - theoretically - pressure them into complying.
So, people were right to boycott Mozilla? That's questionable. Remember, as I said in the opening post, firing and boycotts are a tool that can be used by anyone. What if social conservatives started boycotting businesses with pro-gay CEOs? If every time a group disagreed with a stance of a CEO, they'd boycott the company, there'd be a net social loss resulting from all these boycotts. Also important, if you intend to get a CEO like Eich fired, you're not convincing people that gay rights are good, you're just silencing the opposition. It's similar to you going to the CEO's house and murdering him in his sleep, except it's not a rights-violation. Punishing people for expressing their views silences them, and is injurious to open discourse.
On the other hand, even though the boycotters were in the wrong for seeking to have Eich fired, Mozilla was not in the wrong for firing him - it wasn't punishing him for his views, it was responding to him being bad for business.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:35 PM |
|
|
artu said:
You are not suggesting it would be better and polite, if the artist is "responsible and that he predicts the consequences of his decision to speak and write." You are suggesting that he should be silenced because his work irritates some people. (Not that any artist HAS TO create politely...)
artu,I have different view than you do and when I express it freely,you acuse me of trolling.I find it offencive and the fact that you ASSUME what I suggest,is triggering me away from this discussion,because I want it to be more civilized and with more respect to different opinions.
I wrote down what I had in mind to say and will continue to follow the discussion and wish more luck for the others with clarity.
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:49 PM |
|
|
|
I support the right to boycott a company or a political party or whatever for what representatives of that company. You don't mvass?
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:55 PM |
|
|
They have the right to boycott, no doubt about that. (How would boycotters be stopped, anyway? Would they be forced to shop at the store they'd claim to be boycotting?) But just because they have the right to do it doesn't mean they should - and in this case, it's a bad idea since it's punishing people for expressing their views.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 04:56 PM |
|
|
Boycott can also refer to the activity of preventing others from shopping.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Baklava
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Mostly harmless
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 05:01 PM |
|
Edited by Baklava at 17:03, 22 May 2014.
|
Quote:
So, people were right to boycott Mozilla?
No, no, I didn't make a statement about whether they're right, I said it's their right. We can't prevent people from not using a browser. Nor can we prevent them from telling other people they shouldn't use a browser. Whether they're right doesn't matter. (EDIT you folks apparently already solved this while I was typing)
For instance, we have two major sports clubs here, and roughly half of the populace supports each. Remnants of the ancient times that they are, one is called Red Star and the other Partisan. There was this brewery that got the idea to make itself the official Partisan beer and made a campaign going "part of the proceeds goes to the Partisan football club" etc.
Now they're off the market, one of the reasons being that while Partisan supporters moderately preferred it, the other half generally simply crossed over to other beer. It's simply usually neither smart nor profitable to have any stance as a firm, or as the face of the firm.
But then we have Google, which is gigantic enough to be able to afford it. They understand that the tech-savvy target population in the Western world is young and more liberal in views and predominantly regards this as a question of gay rights which should be supported. They also understand that this is the official position of the White House. Therefore, what Google does is, without an ounce of restraint, they shove a doodle against the Sochi Winter Olympics. The majority of their users are either impartial about it or are going, wow, Google is a really ethical company, I'm glad I use their products, that's the best decision I made since I became a bisexual vegetarian two weeks ago.
And what are the conservatives gonna do? Search the web with Bing?
Simply a question of good PR for a certain political climate.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 22, 2014 11:50 PM |
|
|
We can't stop them from not using Firefox or telling others to do the same, but that's not quite the same as us not being able to do anything at all. We can engage in persuasion. If we think that we should endorse boycotts as a tool of culture wars, we can encourage people to boycott. If we think boycotts are a net negative, we can discourage them from boycotting.Baklava said:
And what are the conservatives gonna do? Search the web with Bing?
The problem is, there's going to be some issue (and probably more than one) where the majority isn't in the right, and so someone will end up silenced for being right. Do we want that?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 07:42 AM |
|
|
Quote:
artu,I have different view than you do and when I express it freely,you acuse me of trolling.I find it offencive and the fact that you ASSUME what I suggest,is triggering me away from this discussion,because I want it to be more civilized and with more respect to different opinions.
I assume nothing. I asked a simple question, were they justified for demanding it not to be allowed, you replied YES (in caps), I said "that would result in oppression," you, then, switched to talking about responsibility and acted as if you had not supported what you supported five seconds before. I didn't accuse you of trolling because you had a different opinion, I underlined the magnitude of your inconsistency.
Oh, and just to clarify, in the kind of socio-cultural climate you had approved with your YES in caps, there's a word for "people predicting the consequences of their decision to speak and write." It's called SELF-CENSORSHIP.
mvass said:
If we think that we should endorse boycotts as a tool of culture wars, we can encourage people to boycott. If we think boycotts are a net negative, we can discourage them from boycotting.
Yes, the famous "I don't agree with you say, but I'll defend your right to say it."
But to defend it excessively? That's why the level of disagreement (so, the actual content of the disagreement) matters, in my opinion.
If some CEO says something like "atheists are degenerate low-lives who are a menace to our society and values." I will not demand him to be silenced, I will not support anybody who's trying to silence him, I will answer yes, if I'm asked if he has the right to speak so. But if some people decide not to buy from his company, I will certainly not waste my time trying to convince them to do the opposite.
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 08:16 AM |
|
|
The matter is not simply one of whether you agree with the person, or how strongly you disagree. If you don't try to stop people from boycotting someone you disagree with, you're letting them silence someone from expressing their views. This seems fine at first, because they were expressing terrible views, but the problem is that this can happen to anyone, regardless of whether you personally happen to think that their views are terrible. One day, atheists boycott a socially conservative CEO who says that atheists tend to be immoral, the next day an atheist CEO says that social conservatives tend to be immoral and he's boycotted by them - why wouldn't they boycott, since it's okay to use boycotts as a weapon in the culture war? So people aren't silenced based on whether they're right or wrong, they're silenced depending on whether the group opposing them is powerful enough to silence them. And that's a worse world than one in which no one boycotts anyone based on this kind of disagreement.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
fred79
Disgraceful
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 23, 2014 08:33 AM |
|
|
mvass has a point.
but then, i'm all for any retards(note: not people with down's syndrome, but retards) being forced to keep their mouths shut(stapled shut/sewn shut/vocal cords removed, preferably).
less noise pollution that way, and less idiotic things being said, or introduced, that change things for the worst. like that senator who tried to stop the South Carolina girl's "state fossil" bill, unless it included crediting a god as well; as just one of countless instances.
|
| |
|
|
