Subj : Re: Computer Kits
To   : Jeff
From : Arelor
Date : Sun Jan 30 2022 20:06:57

  Re: Re: Computer Kits
  By: Jeff to Arelor on Sun Jan 30 2022 07:49 pm

 > On 30 Jan 2022, Arelor said the following...
 >  Ar> I think it was Hayek who said that the most important trait of a free
 >  Ar> society is that you can have an impopular opinion without it ruining
 >  Ar> your life.
 > 
 > I don't believe that conjecture to be true. Perhaps Hayek was referring to
 > having one's life ruined by one's government?
 > 
 >  Ar> What we see nowadays is people trying to ruin other people's livemaking
 >  Ar> not because they have an impopular opinion, but because they have an
 >  Ar> opinion they dislike. Even if such opinion has no relationship to the
 >  Ar> way the target makes his living.
 > 
 > This is true, but is also not anything new.
 > 
 >  Ar> If my boss fired me because I voted for a different Town Hall candidate
 >  Ar> than he did, he would be frowned upon, but somehow, there is this big
 >  Ar> mass of people who thinks it is good and righteous to send letters to
 >  Ar> people's employers and providers and demmand him to be kicked out
 >  Ar> because of some personal opinion which has nothing to do with his job.
 > 
 > That is up to the company in question, and whether they want to be associate
 > with that particular employee. The middleman is not even always necessary.
 > 
 >  Ar> The same people who partakes in such destructive behavior are the sames
 >  Ar> that complain because this or that politician was divisive.
 > 
 > I don't see the contradiction.
 > 
 >  Ar> If you delve deep down into certain echo chambers I can think off, it i
 >  Ar> very clear that the end goal for a lot of cancellers is for making it s
 >  Ar> having an opinion they don't aprove off is no longer safe.
 > 
 > Indeed. For a very long time, the opinion that women should be able to vote
 > or that gay people should be allowed to exist or that black people should be
 > able to live where they please were not safe opinions to hold. The danger
 > posed by "cancel culture" is mild in comparison.
 > 
 >  Ar> To claim this is any good, my friend, is the real non-starter.
 > 
 > It is neither good nor bad; it simply is. It can be used for good or bad,
 > and we may not even agree whether a given application is good or bad, but
 > that's irrelevant. A means of applying economic pressure to corporations doe
 > not possess its own moral compass.
 > 
 > Jeff.

I would have to dig for the book but I am pretty sure Hayek was not talking
about the government specifically in that paragraph.

A lot of jobs are vulnerable to lynch mobs, specially in the Entertainment
industry. It is easier for a magazine or a fan-based social network to fold to
preasure and drop impopular people than to keep them. There are always more
people they can use as a replacement. Firms are not known for standing for
their employees. In the case of a small publisher which may not even have full
time writers in their payroll, they may actually have no option if faced with
credible threats.

The contradiction is as follows:

"I think this politician is divisive. Division is bad" [5 minutes later] "Let's
mark a bunch of people I dislike as The Enemy and start a civil cold war. Us
against them. Let's finish them all off!!!!"

You already brought cancel culture examples which are as bad (or worse than)
relocating people due to ethnical reasons, so the argument (which is just a
variant of whataboutism) is gonna need 30 galons of Red Bull to fly.

--
gopher://gopher.richardfalken.com/1/richardfalken
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (21:2/138)

.