That being said, I wonder how much of the difference between neo-liberal/libertarians and liberals on some issues like rent control are about placing importance in unquantifiable values.
The arguments I have seen against rent control are largely about things that can be easily quantified to a certain extent. Stuff like opportunity. Rent Control keeps people from taking opportunities and moving because they don't want to lose the low rent.
My pro-rent control beliefs come from issues that are not easily discussed in "wonk" white papers. Stuff like the right for families and people to remain in their hometowns or close to if desired or whether they want to stay put. The right of children especially the children of working class folks to stay in the same school and develop communities without needing to move year after year chasing the job market.
I've come to the conclusion that for the sake of a functioning democracy (or even just society) we simply need to take claims of sincerity on face value or we will be stuck in a La Brea Tar Pit of constant questioning and accusation. We might really know that the person is bullshitting and being sarcastic but need to take it as sincere to protect the truly sincere. The best example of this is The Fying Spaghetti Monster.
Or me. I consider myself to be Jewish culturally and ethnically. I go to Synagogue on the High Holidays and celebrate Passover and other holidays. However, when it comes to whether God exists or not, I am a large apathetic agnostic and strongly leaning towards no. My view is that Torah is philosophy and ethics via metaphor and story with some factual elements that have been proven by archeology.
However, I have some friends who are hardcore Dawkins styled Atheists. It infuriates them to no end that I identify as Jewish. No amount of explaining can get them to understand or accept the concepts of cultural and/or ethnic Judaism. I imagine they would think me insincere.
Chen is an Internet journalist who generally goes against places like /b and reddit and challenges the professional troll presumptions. The one he challenges most often is "Don't take things too seriously on the Internet"
Chen and his wife have been the victim of general /b style attacks because of his articles. I think a lot of people are angry at him for breaking a sacred code as you put it. They want the Internet to be a separate place from the real world and they want their actions on the net to be free of consequence.
Almost everyone seems to agree that Bustch's posts are morally or ethically reprehensible in some way. His defenders don't want any real world consequence for these actions.
Why shouldn't visual art like Robert Mapplethorpe? Music like Philip Glass? Or performance art like Karen Finley and Meredith Monk be protected under the First Amendment?
Humans do just as much communication through visuals, dance, sound, and music as we do through speech. Why should law be allowed to punish Andre Serras for a photograph called "Pissed Christ" over a speech that communicates the same idea?
I don't see this as a worthy distinction.
Also should the law always just do what three out of five experts say? Certainly experts and academic arguments should be considered but there are broader, more philosophical considerations that are also important that cannot be quanitifed. Including non-vocal communication in Free Speech is one of these ideas. It allows people to communicate in ways that are more emotionally evocative and produce a strong emotional reaction. Visuals often do produce a strong reaction than speech.
Your arguments on a very limited First Amendment are not very liberal.
If that is the case, then his actions were not legal.
Talking about what is and what is not child pornography is a very tricky issue. I've read stories in the news about parents who came under the heat of investigation for simply taking bathtime pictures of their kids. The most recent story I heard was about an anti-Coal environmentalist in West Virginia. She was doing a presentation about how Coal hurts the environment in front of the West Virginia legislator and one of her pieces of evidence was a picture of kids (maybe hers but I'm not sure) bathing in black, disgusting water that came out of the tap. The coal-shill Republicans began immediately opining about whether the pictures were child pornography to shut her up.
Agreed on the healthcare and I support single-payer. In some ways, single payer (and other safety net stuff) would make me more willing to support at-will employment because people will not be completely fucked if terminated.
What gives me pause is her screenname of not_so_violentacrez. This means she knew about and approved of her husband's activities. What the fuck?
And then there is the other story (which I still hope is false) about his nineteen year old stepdaughter and a previous wife.
Here I disagree and so does the law, speech is not just literally the words you write or speak. Images count as speech. Actions count as speech (like burning the flag). The Government can not censor or punish either Larry Flynnt or Robert Maplethorpe for the images they take.
I am not sure how I feel about Haidt's work. His whole "Conservatives have a more full way of looking at things" strikes me as being a good way for a liberal to get lucrative speaking gigs.
While you might not be concerned, plenty of more moralistic employers are concerned.
IIRC from my employment law class, there are four states with "lifestyle protection" laws that prevent employers from firing employees for lawful out of work activity. In all other U.S. jurisdictions, firing for any out of work activity is fair game. At-Will really does mean At-Will for the most part. Any employee can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.
I am generally opposed to this. I am more for Just Cause firing (aka as good reasons only) and will easily and without a fight concede that Violentacrez easily falls into Just Cause termination. So I recant and apologize for any previous defense.
I feel sorry for his victims and hope they sue and win (possibly even from reddit). I feel sorry for his wife because she is very sick. Though according to the gawker story she seems to have full knowledge of his trolling activties which gives me pasue. I think her on-line name was not_so_violentacrez.
No it isn't okay and should result in some kind of civil lawsuit. Perhaps even against the employer if said harassment was done during work hours and with work resources. Then the guy could fired.
Allowing employer's to fire for any off-work reason is tricky and often wrong. Perhaps sometimes an employer needs to and with good cause but I am trying to think of a system that protects most people,
How would you write a law that allows an employer to fire someone like this idiot while protecting another employee who belongs to an S and M type group/club or some kind of transgresive performance collective?
Though I have to admit, I understand and empathize with anyone who would be creeped out by violentacrez and not want to work near him. I would fire him before telling my innocent employees to deal with the situation if I were the boss.
The story about the police officer from Brighton is a false equivalence. He was abusing his power as an officer of the state and should be punished for that. This is different than a police officer making a sextape with his consenting wife or girlfriend.
I am not supporting Bustch in the comments. I think the man is a pathetic loser.
However, there is a serious issue about whether an employer should be able to fire an employee for off-work legal activity. Violentacrez is a horrible example though. The cop who made a sex tape with his wife is a better example. There is nothing illegal about making a sex tape with another consenting adult. There is nothing illegal about putting this on the Internet. Why should an employer be allowed to get uptight about this and fire said employee? I say this as a serious issue of labor rights. I have also heard of conservative employers who fired employees for getting divorced.
There is nothing I find supportable or laudable about the dude. However if I am going to be a good civil libertarian, I can't just make it about activities or people that I support and like.
I don't know if it is new but I agree with your penultimate paragraph points on it being anti-free speech and why. Perhaps we notice it a lot more. I am very anti-Meme for the reasons you describe.
Perhaps but I refuse to say that "everything is political" as a way of justifying bad and asocial behavior. Just because people have a unique gift for making everything and anything political does not mean that everything and anything is political.
The guy is an ass. Most trolls are pompous asses with no sense of compassion or empathy. This is an interview with a troll:
Why does he get to decide that people take things too seriously and that being earnest is a major bummer? That is a pretty damned arrogant opinion of oneself as an arbitrator of what should and should not be on the internet.
On “Violenceacrez, Reddit and Abuse of Power”
Well said in all your points.
That being said, I wonder how much of the difference between neo-liberal/libertarians and liberals on some issues like rent control are about placing importance in unquantifiable values.
The arguments I have seen against rent control are largely about things that can be easily quantified to a certain extent. Stuff like opportunity. Rent Control keeps people from taking opportunities and moving because they don't want to lose the low rent.
My pro-rent control beliefs come from issues that are not easily discussed in "wonk" white papers. Stuff like the right for families and people to remain in their hometowns or close to if desired or whether they want to stay put. The right of children especially the children of working class folks to stay in the same school and develop communities without needing to move year after year chasing the job market.
"
Basically, the only way to protect the truly sincere is to give facevalue to claims of sincerity from the insincere.
If someone can come up with a foolproof way to protect the sincere without doing so, please tell me. As far as I can tell, none exists.
"
Well that is the problem, isn't it.
I've come to the conclusion that for the sake of a functioning democracy (or even just society) we simply need to take claims of sincerity on face value or we will be stuck in a La Brea Tar Pit of constant questioning and accusation. We might really know that the person is bullshitting and being sarcastic but need to take it as sincere to protect the truly sincere. The best example of this is The Fying Spaghetti Monster.
Or me. I consider myself to be Jewish culturally and ethnically. I go to Synagogue on the High Holidays and celebrate Passover and other holidays. However, when it comes to whether God exists or not, I am a large apathetic agnostic and strongly leaning towards no. My view is that Torah is philosophy and ethics via metaphor and story with some factual elements that have been proven by archeology.
However, I have some friends who are hardcore Dawkins styled Atheists. It infuriates them to no end that I identify as Jewish. No amount of explaining can get them to understand or accept the concepts of cultural and/or ethnic Judaism. I imagine they would think me insincere.
Which one of us right? Which one of us decides?
"
If it is sincere belief, then it would probably count as religious discrimination.
The First Amendment does not give the Courts or Congress much power in saying what is and what is not a sincere religion.
"
Chen is an Internet journalist who generally goes against places like /b and reddit and challenges the professional troll presumptions. The one he challenges most often is "Don't take things too seriously on the Internet"
Chen and his wife have been the victim of general /b style attacks because of his articles. I think a lot of people are angry at him for breaking a sacred code as you put it. They want the Internet to be a separate place from the real world and they want their actions on the net to be free of consequence.
Almost everyone seems to agree that Bustch's posts are morally or ethically reprehensible in some way. His defenders don't want any real world consequence for these actions.
On “Learning to Fall Out of Love with Hate, Part 2: Violentacrez Loses His Job”
I don't think anyone knows. My gut would tell me it was probably negative publicity but could be a bit of both.
On “Violenceacrez, Reddit and Abuse of Power”
How about what artists say?
Why shouldn't visual art like Robert Mapplethorpe? Music like Philip Glass? Or performance art like Karen Finley and Meredith Monk be protected under the First Amendment?
Humans do just as much communication through visuals, dance, sound, and music as we do through speech. Why should law be allowed to punish Andre Serras for a photograph called "Pissed Christ" over a speech that communicates the same idea?
I don't see this as a worthy distinction.
Also should the law always just do what three out of five experts say? Certainly experts and academic arguments should be considered but there are broader, more philosophical considerations that are also important that cannot be quanitifed. Including non-vocal communication in Free Speech is one of these ideas. It allows people to communicate in ways that are more emotionally evocative and produce a strong emotional reaction. Visuals often do produce a strong reaction than speech.
Your arguments on a very limited First Amendment are not very liberal.
"
If that is the case, then his actions were not legal.
Talking about what is and what is not child pornography is a very tricky issue. I've read stories in the news about parents who came under the heat of investigation for simply taking bathtime pictures of their kids. The most recent story I heard was about an anti-Coal environmentalist in West Virginia. She was doing a presentation about how Coal hurts the environment in front of the West Virginia legislator and one of her pieces of evidence was a picture of kids (maybe hers but I'm not sure) bathing in black, disgusting water that came out of the tap. The coal-shill Republicans began immediately opining about whether the pictures were child pornography to shut her up.
"
This was almost cute. Not really though.
"
Agreed on the healthcare and I support single-payer. In some ways, single payer (and other safety net stuff) would make me more willing to support at-will employment because people will not be completely fucked if terminated.
What gives me pause is her screenname of not_so_violentacrez. This means she knew about and approved of her husband's activities. What the fuck?
And then there is the other story (which I still hope is false) about his nineteen year old stepdaughter and a previous wife.
"
Here I disagree and so does the law, speech is not just literally the words you write or speak. Images count as speech. Actions count as speech (like burning the flag). The Government can not censor or punish either Larry Flynnt or Robert Maplethorpe for the images they take.
"
No worries. Sorry if my reply sounded snarky.
"
I know about at-will. I studied it in my employment law and discrimination classes in law school.
I disagree with the At-Will system and would replace it with Just Cause.
"
To answer your question (hopefully it was not rhetorical)
1. He will never be hired anywhere again.
2. He will look for employers too lazy too google or get "lucky" and find one that sympathizes.
3. He will need to lay low for a few months and then start looking as this story fades into Internet memory.
"
I am not sure how I feel about Haidt's work. His whole "Conservatives have a more full way of looking at things" strikes me as being a good way for a liberal to get lucrative speaking gigs.
"
While you might not be concerned, plenty of more moralistic employers are concerned.
IIRC from my employment law class, there are four states with "lifestyle protection" laws that prevent employers from firing employees for lawful out of work activity. In all other U.S. jurisdictions, firing for any out of work activity is fair game. At-Will really does mean At-Will for the most part. Any employee can be fired for a good reason, bad reason, or no reason at all.
I am generally opposed to this. I am more for Just Cause firing (aka as good reasons only) and will easily and without a fight concede that Violentacrez easily falls into Just Cause termination. So I recant and apologize for any previous defense.
I feel sorry for his victims and hope they sue and win (possibly even from reddit). I feel sorry for his wife because she is very sick. Though according to the gawker story she seems to have full knowledge of his trolling activties which gives me pasue. I think her on-line name was not_so_violentacrez.
"
This is true. He deserved to be fired for that.
"
No it isn't okay and should result in some kind of civil lawsuit. Perhaps even against the employer if said harassment was done during work hours and with work resources. Then the guy could fired.
Allowing employer's to fire for any off-work reason is tricky and often wrong. Perhaps sometimes an employer needs to and with good cause but I am trying to think of a system that protects most people,
How would you write a law that allows an employer to fire someone like this idiot while protecting another employee who belongs to an S and M type group/club or some kind of transgresive performance collective?
"
Though I have to admit, I understand and empathize with anyone who would be creeped out by violentacrez and not want to work near him. I would fire him before telling my innocent employees to deal with the situation if I were the boss.
"
The story about the police officer from Brighton is a false equivalence. He was abusing his power as an officer of the state and should be punished for that. This is different than a police officer making a sextape with his consenting wife or girlfriend.
"
I am not supporting Bustch in the comments. I think the man is a pathetic loser.
However, there is a serious issue about whether an employer should be able to fire an employee for off-work legal activity. Violentacrez is a horrible example though. The cop who made a sex tape with his wife is a better example. There is nothing illegal about making a sex tape with another consenting adult. There is nothing illegal about putting this on the Internet. Why should an employer be allowed to get uptight about this and fire said employee? I say this as a serious issue of labor rights. I have also heard of conservative employers who fired employees for getting divorced.
There is nothing I find supportable or laudable about the dude. However if I am going to be a good civil libertarian, I can't just make it about activities or people that I support and like.
On “Learning to Fall Out of Love with Hate, Part 2: Violentacrez Loses His Job”
I feel sorry for his wife because she is seriously sick. I do not feel sorry for him
Though I really, really hope the story about the 19-year old stepdaughter is not true and just trolling.
If it is true then I don't know what to make of the entire family.
"
I don't know if it is new but I agree with your penultimate paragraph points on it being anti-free speech and why. Perhaps we notice it a lot more. I am very anti-Meme for the reasons you describe.
"
Perhaps but I refuse to say that "everything is political" as a way of justifying bad and asocial behavior. Just because people have a unique gift for making everything and anything political does not mean that everything and anything is political.
The guy is an ass. Most trolls are pompous asses with no sense of compassion or empathy. This is an interview with a troll:
http://billions-and-billions.com/2012/05/28/interview-with-a-troll/
Why does he get to decide that people take things too seriously and that being earnest is a major bummer? That is a pretty damned arrogant opinion of oneself as an arbitrator of what should and should not be on the internet.
"
Exactly.
I am still curious about what Prye means by "legislation" though.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.