Yeah but you can say that about any ideas. Often used to discriminate against atheists coz ppl find our views immoral.
-
-
Replying to @HPluckrose
I was agnst Google's firing of that memo guy. There are some big differences I see is in the details (public v private, science v ideology).
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @icalltopsolo
You'd punish less speech but still some speech. I get it. Seems unambiguously awful but still dangerous to normalise.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose @icalltopsolo
Because the majority view always gets to decide which speech is so awful, punishment is warranted.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
There's an 'effectiveness' argument to be made. A pizza conpany is unlikely to hire a candidate who admits in interview that they hate pizza
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @icalltopsolo @HPluckrose
So it isn't punishment for the hate speech per se, but someone publically claiming hateful ideas is unlikely the best staffing option.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @icalltopsolo
I'm not blaming the employer so much if he needs to save his business but the attitude which makes this possible.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
-
Replying to @icalltopsolo
The general change in attitude towards danger of words & ideas. Let's assume charitably that employer concerned for business.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @HPluckrose
Then we actually agree here, but it feels a bit like a boogeyman. Hard to quantify and identify.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Not really. Only gets complicated when we try to decide which ideas we can punish & which not. But I have to go out.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.