The problem is that the left gets people cancelled for hate speech. The right gets people cancelled for objective truth. Read the comments that people are getting fired for. It’s a blatant doouble standard that shifts the overton window on public discourse. Fascist bigots are running the country, and there’s no room for compromise with hate.
Nobody is “protected” from consequences of their speech. Free speech means we don’t have laws prohibiting speaking. It doesn’t mean you cannot be fired from your job, or people won’t call you a douchebag.
Everyone doing this sort of thing is sure that he’s the one speaking objective truth while his enemies are evil and destroying the country. The sight of so many people on the other side equally sure that they’re actually the ones speaking the objective truth ought to cause some self-doubt but it seldom does.
There really are people out there who are evil and people who are destroying the country (not necessarily the same people) but we either have rules for everyone or rules for no one. “Rules for them but not for me, since I’m speaking objective truth” is, in effect, rules for no one.
It’s good to be humble and open to being wrong. It’s bad to stop looking for objective truth. The “post-truth” stance is easily weaponized against the actual truth. Rules should protect the truth.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t look for objective truth, but rather that the behavior of someone who thinks he’s probably right and the behavior of someone who thinks he’s definitely right are going to be quite different, and that we would all (probably) be better off if cultural norms favored the former sort of behavior rather than the latter.
Norms according to which it is ok for one side to attack the other in some way but it is not ok for the other side to respond in the same way (because the first side considers itself objectively correct) only work when the balance of power between the two sides is so uneven that it would often be called oppression. The desire to oppress others is a part of the human condition that everyone ought to be alert for in themselves - being on the left does not mean being immune. However, even those on the left who are in no mood for tolerance currently don’t have the power to win the fight their way - if tolerance doesn’t win then the right will win.
I should clarify what I mean by tolerance. I’m talking about the ability to co-exist peacefully even with the people that one hates. If this sort of tolerance breaks down, then the left is at a large disadvantage in the conflict that would follow - the right is generally more unified, better at violence, and in control of the federal government.
The problem is that the left gets people cancelled for hate speech. The right gets people cancelled for objective truth. Read the comments that people are getting fired for. It’s a blatant doouble standard that shifts the overton window on public discourse. Fascist bigots are running the country, and there’s no room for compromise with hate.
Not a legal designation and legally protected as regular speech. Legal protections don’t extend to private action, and opinions aren’t truth.
Anyhow, firing public employees speaking as private citizens over public concerns violates 1ˢᵗ amendment rights to free speech under the Pickering test.
Nobody is “protected” from consequences of their speech. Free speech means we don’t have laws prohibiting speaking. It doesn’t mean you cannot be fired from your job, or people won’t call you a douchebag.
I suggest you work on your reading as I wrote the same regarding private action.
Everyone doing this sort of thing is sure that he’s the one speaking objective truth while his enemies are evil and destroying the country. The sight of so many people on the other side equally sure that they’re actually the ones speaking the objective truth ought to cause some self-doubt but it seldom does.
There really are people out there who are evil and people who are destroying the country (not necessarily the same people) but we either have rules for everyone or rules for no one. “Rules for them but not for me, since I’m speaking objective truth” is, in effect, rules for no one.
It’s good to be humble and open to being wrong. It’s bad to stop looking for objective truth. The “post-truth” stance is easily weaponized against the actual truth. Rules should protect the truth.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t look for objective truth, but rather that the behavior of someone who thinks he’s probably right and the behavior of someone who thinks he’s definitely right are going to be quite different, and that we would all (probably) be better off if cultural norms favored the former sort of behavior rather than the latter.
Norms according to which it is ok for one side to attack the other in some way but it is not ok for the other side to respond in the same way (because the first side considers itself objectively correct) only work when the balance of power between the two sides is so uneven that it would often be called oppression. The desire to oppress others is a part of the human condition that everyone ought to be alert for in themselves - being on the left does not mean being immune. However, even those on the left who are in no mood for tolerance currently don’t have the power to win the fight their way - if tolerance doesn’t win then the right will win.
Would you mind expanding on this? I can think of a few very different interpretations.
I should clarify what I mean by tolerance. I’m talking about the ability to co-exist peacefully even with the people that one hates. If this sort of tolerance breaks down, then the left is at a large disadvantage in the conflict that would follow - the right is generally more unified, better at violence, and in control of the federal government.
Bull, and I cannot stress this enough, crap. Conservative ideology eschews objective truth in favor of beneficial positions every fucking time.