re: Will rampant viewpoint discrimination be a permanent fixture in American life?

quote:

---

Exactly.

It isn’t “empathy”.

It is survival.

---

It's no different than publicly asking an Iraqi Shia in Baghdad in 1986 how they felt about Saddam. We love him!

To me, this seems circular because I haven't actually seen any evidence in support of your claim that corporations are putting out these statements under threat of violence. At this point, it's just an unfounded assumption.

quote:

---

The idea that because Americans oppose violent protests but a majority at least "somewhat support" the movement, the protests aren't violent/destructive - is bizarre.

---

We know Americans dislike violent protests. (You can argue that point if you'd like, but I have no idea why you would.) If a majority of Americans support these protests, then there must be at least a widespread belief that they are not violent. If Americans perceived these protests as violent or intimidating, as you argue that they do, then the protests would not be as popular as they are.

quote:

---

my position doesn't rest on the premise that the majority or even a large contingent of protests include actual violence/destruction

---

So according to you, people and corporations are afraid for their lives and property whether or not violence and destruction are actually happening. All you have to do is prove that. Bring some evidence to the table showing that there is widespread fear and intimidation caused by this rhetoric. As of now, the evidence we have (polls of people across all racial groups expressing support for the protests) points in the opposite direction.

At the end of the day, your claim that this isn't the real free market of ideas because companies feel coerced and intimidated into showing support for BLM kind of falls apart without any proof for that claim.

In my opinion, that is a premise that feels truthy to people who think the protests are a bunch of nonsense to begin with but can't actually withstand any scrutiny, like the idea that there's a silent majority out there that have a problem with the current state of the protests but are just too scared of the mean people on Twitter to say so.

quote:

---

but are just too scared of the mean people on Twitter to say so. 

---

Social pressure has been a thing for hundreds of thousands of years. It's not new, it's just highly amplified by people too soft to listen to dissenting opinion. When you call everyone you disagree with a "racist" you may be in a cult.

The twittersphere is a cesspool of the nastiest variety.

quote:

---

We know Americans dislike violent protests. (You can argue that point if you'd like, but I have no idea why you would.) If a majority of Americans support these protests, then there must be at least a widespread belief that they are not violent. If Americans perceived these protests as violent or intimidating, as you argue that they do, then the protests would not be as popular as they are.

---

You're making an assumption whereby "somewhat support" is doing a ton of work here. I somewhat support the protests for George Floyd, but in general I strongly oppose a lot of the movement that is now running the show. I think that would be a fairly common opinion.

quote:

---

So according to you, people and corporations are afraid for their lives and property whether or not violence and destruction are actually happening. All you have to do is prove that. Bring some evidence to the table showing that there is widespread fear and intimidation caused by this rhetoric. As of now, the evidence we have (polls of people across all racial groups expressing support for the protests) points in the opposite direction.

---

You're conflating several things here.

First, lukewarm support for protests being used as evidence that people aren't fearful of a movement connected to the protests seems misplaced. I assume you would agree that someone could appreciate the premise of the protests (and respond to Pew with such support) while also fearing for their own job/property etc. at the hands of BLM or Antifa types.

Second, you're misstating my argument. The violence and destruction is happening, obviously that's irrefutable. What I made reference to is that my position isn't based on the idea that it's at the hands of a "majority or even large contingent." You then turned that into a question, apparently, of whether violence or destruction is happening at all, which entirely derails the discussion.

quote:

---

At the end of the day, your claim that this isn't the real free market of ideas because companies feel coerced and intimidated into showing support for BLM kind of falls apart without any proof for that claim.

---

I think I deemed it a "fricked up" free market of ideas. One that is built on the basis of false narratives and authorities that typically regulate the free market (of ideas) not functioning. Moreover, the only evidence you've provided in support of your position are generalized maxims about corporations pursuing profit and polling showing some degree of support for some type of protests. I don't find that particularly compelling, as you likely expect.

I do find some of your position credible, and if I thought you were a free market absolutist, your reasoning would resonate somewhat. But I think you're a proponent of the underlying views (promotion of BLM aims and exclusion of opposing viewpoints) rather than the vehicle for those views (allegedly, the free market of ideas). And I find them generally incompatible, considering the political ideology underlying the movement is not one supportive of the free market of ideas (at least without the threat of violence or destruction or tools like a dishonest media).

Which overall makes the free market promotion seem disingenuous. You provided some caveated support for my hypo previously, but again, I have to think your enthusiasm would wane if the prevailing winds shift against the movement.

quote:

---

So in this scenario, a Coke employee makes a public statement.

Consumers learn of this statement, and tell Coke, "Fire this person or we won't buy Coke anymore."

Coke, being a free, capitalist business, exercises their right to fire an employee.

Other businesses exercise their own rights to decide whether or not to hire this person.

Again, what's the alternative?

---

The alternative?

Coke says, “frick you. All lives matter is not racist. We’re not firing him. If you don’t like it, drink Pepsi motherfricker.”

Have you seen the Poliboard whenever a dissenting view is shared?

Neither side has the market cornered on the angry mob mentality.

quote:

---

When you call everyone you disagree with a "racist" you may be in a cult.

---

This is why everyone should be careful to remove anything that can easily identify your home address, employer, etc. from social media platforms like Twitter or Facebook.