Quote: (09-10-2013 10:33 PM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:
Quote: (09-10-2013 10:17 PM)Blaster Wrote:
Quote:Quote:
However, I don't think that detail mattered to the many members willing to overlook his use of that word regardless of context. There's definitely some measure of a Heartiste-like following on RVF.
Also, why the hell are people acting like Dickinson is some naive wage slave rookie delivering pizzas or something?
Because it should not matter whether he is a C-level exec or a wage slave rookie. It doesn't matter who he is, the appropriate response to words you don't like is not attacking the person's income.
Well, apparently it does matter. Otherwise, he'd still be employed at BI. Let's talk about reality.
Ok, I meant "it should not matter who he is" for both sentences, not merely the first sentence. The reality is he got fired because activists decided to wage a smear campaign and BI caved to the resulting pressure. My point is those activists are in the wrong and no one should excuse them, so long as whatever Pax Dickinson might have said counts as legitimate personal expression and political opinions.
Quote:Quote:
It seems like the forum gives more of a fuck about Dickinson than he does.
I'm more interested in the people who clearly don't understand the point of free expression and how it's supposed to work-- especially people who
absolutely should including employees of a major media organization like Gawker and university professors.
I'm also interested in highlighting and castigating the dishonest, manipulative, hatemongering techniques used by the agitators; and preventing apologists from excusing these vile methods with bullshit double-speak about "Social Consequences."
Quote:Quote:
Also, who cares about whether or not his N-word tweet reflected his views or not. That's all moot now that there's information that Therapsid found showing his affinity for racist groups. Where there's smoke, there's fire.
I don't care if the tweet reflected his views because my argument is about the right and ability to express views, however controversial and offensive they might be. The whole idea that digging through someone's views in order to identify them as a villain of some sort (eg, a racist) is the exact poisonous mentality I want to combat. If he expresses racist views, attack the racist views. Don't silence his opinion with a public shaming campaign.
Coercive techniques such as boycotts and shaming are best used
to effect a policy change. There should be a clear goal. A clear problem with a well-defined solution the activists want to achieve. For example: ABC Company funding a government engaged in genocide. Activists boycott ABC company and engage in shaming campaigns until either the genocide stops or the company stops funding it. If there are any personal attacks at all, they would be directed specifically at leaders responsible for the
harmful actions of ABC company. And typically, the attacks and boycotts are not vindictive or punitive, they're merely coercive and once the company has caved to the pressure the coercion will stop.
Coercive techniques, meanwhile, are entirely inappropriate as a response to
personal expression. It's a violation of the spirit of free speech to engage in a witch-hunt of an individual person simply because activists tell a mob that he
is an evil person, especially by twisting his own words against him.
Until Pax Dickinson crosses the line where he is doing more than merely express opinions, however offensive they might be, whatever crimewords he chooses to use, and whatever those words say about his personal character, then whatever his opinions might be make no difference at all when it comes to deciding whether I defend his right to make them or not. Think about it: what do you prove by silencing dissent? Nothing. You can't change someone's mind by throwing a temper tantrum and you can't persuade skeptics by burning dissenters at the stake (although you can scare them into silence, which is the point).
It's true that not all speech is merely expressing opinion. Indeed-- the Indian woman's speech was decidedly more than mere expression of opinion, it was speech deliberately intended to stir up animosity towards an individual. I have seen no convincing case that Dickinson's tweets ever crossed that line.