![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Fear of "Politics" or "Organization"
Jan. 13th, 2015 09:24 amSo, Brad Togersen, this year's leader of the Sad Puppies Hugo slate, put out a blog post entitled Speech and Punishment, in which he argued that "banning people from work, kicking them off jobs, or out of magazines and papers, or even inciting or seeking their deaths, is cowardice."
Now, in general, I'm against banning people from work. On the other hand, if I complain about somebody (AKA, "exercise my First Amendment right") and somebody else responds in a manner unfavorable to the Party of the First Part, well, that's called a free society. In any event, I let the post slide by
Then, in comments, Brad said "A personal boycott is A-OK with me. I draw the line, though, at trying to rally a group or a mob in order to bully a company into firing somebody."
My response: What you’re demanding here isn’t free speech, it’s privileged speech. You’re asking that we have to quietly sit and listen to any person who speaks on any subject. Now, don’t get me wrong – that would be polite, and I have personal issues with several of the examples in the original post. But I don’t see any problem with people organizing to peacefully protest against the speech of another. Neither did the authors of the Constitution when they talk of “peaceably petition for redress of grievances.”
The thread deteriorated into a lot of complaining about "mobs" and then somebody said there was a difference between a "spontaneous and genuine" protest and an "organized and political" protest.
No, Virginia, there is not. People don't show up a protests unless they genuinely care about the issue at hand. Politics is something that (some if not most) people care about.
To get to the point at hand, conservatives and libertarians are scared of organized groups. One person can do whatever they want, but if he gets a couple of buddies to go with him, call out the National Guard. And if they create some sort of standing organization to advance their cause, best nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).
I find this irritating, for several reasons. First, there is no moral difference between one person doing something and a group. Second, as a practical matter, in a modern society, the only way to effect change is to be part of a group. So, by declaring groups "bad" one in fact declares change bad.
Now, in general, I'm against banning people from work. On the other hand, if I complain about somebody (AKA, "exercise my First Amendment right") and somebody else responds in a manner unfavorable to the Party of the First Part, well, that's called a free society. In any event, I let the post slide by
Then, in comments, Brad said "A personal boycott is A-OK with me. I draw the line, though, at trying to rally a group or a mob in order to bully a company into firing somebody."
My response: What you’re demanding here isn’t free speech, it’s privileged speech. You’re asking that we have to quietly sit and listen to any person who speaks on any subject. Now, don’t get me wrong – that would be polite, and I have personal issues with several of the examples in the original post. But I don’t see any problem with people organizing to peacefully protest against the speech of another. Neither did the authors of the Constitution when they talk of “peaceably petition for redress of grievances.”
The thread deteriorated into a lot of complaining about "mobs" and then somebody said there was a difference between a "spontaneous and genuine" protest and an "organized and political" protest.
No, Virginia, there is not. People don't show up a protests unless they genuinely care about the issue at hand. Politics is something that (some if not most) people care about.
To get to the point at hand, conservatives and libertarians are scared of organized groups. One person can do whatever they want, but if he gets a couple of buddies to go with him, call out the National Guard. And if they create some sort of standing organization to advance their cause, best nuke it from orbit (it's the only way to be sure).
I find this irritating, for several reasons. First, there is no moral difference between one person doing something and a group. Second, as a practical matter, in a modern society, the only way to effect change is to be part of a group. So, by declaring groups "bad" one in fact declares change bad.
