OMNILIBRIUM
  Rational Discussion of Controversial Topics


GO TO THE MAIN THREAD Sort By:


Fwiffo 8 May 2015 03:53 PM
56%

Western civilization holds freedom of speech very dear. There is tendency to have separation of church and secular power rather than have a pro-church or anti-church goverment, being in tune with the principle of freedom of conscience. Similarly oaths have their secular equivalents and there is a secular relationship corresponding to a religious marriage. Also the principle of freedom of voting, that voting is secret, that political discrimination is forbidden pretty directly concerns in hindering the described behaviour. You can't be targeted for shunning for you political beliefs if you can exercise your politcal rights without anyone being able to identify you.

Also relevant is the principle of selfdiscrimination shield. While you are required to follow the law you do not need to turn yourself in for breaking it. This also delineates that any criminal hunt is required to follow the law. If you suspect that someone has broken the law you are still required to treat the suspected party decently. Even if you think very lowly of someone it doesn't give you authorization to such acts as maiming or murder even if those things are officially recognised as "very bad things to do". This gives a floor to where your standing can drop.

I know that while these things are pretty well encoded on the state and offical level the social level is less keen to get the spirit of them. Thus their relevance often comes up when the standard social treatment would not provide them those kinds of rights but official forces offer them those protections.

Now every social circle doesn't need to enforce those kind of standards. But I would example note that by doing this Omnilibrium thing when you come here it is good to understand that not everyone is going to agree with you atleast from the get go. That is if you get inherently offended that there exists another person ... read more

stars0
Reply


melian 8 May 2015 04:49 PM
72%

Western civilization holds freedom of speech very dear.


It claims to do so, but the reality is a bit different. True, Western countries are certainly far better than others. People donít usually get killed there for offensive speech (though quite a few did get killed or were forced into hiding precisely for that in the recent years). But people can still easily lose their jobs or sources of income if their words are found offensive by politically powerful groups.

The tricky thing is that people can have stealth assumptions, beliefs that they just happen to believe (but that they think have justifications)


The problem with stealth assumptions is that people usually benefit from them in some way and so have not motivation for fighting them.


stars0
Reply


Fwiffo 8 May 2015 06:38 PM
58%

Atleast we the west recognises it as an ideal that warrants effort to achieve. Yes it's not a stellar model example and there is much hypocrisy. There are also parts of it were it's taken a lot more "seriously", less in vain.

Usually if you can show a concrete cause-effect relationship such discrimination it can lead to compensation. It tends to (and they are smart enough to) stay murky enough that it is often not possible. There was a case of high profile news organization applicant to chief editor succesfully claimed compensation for not being picked for being lesbian. It is not explictly political but the political kind tends to be similar worldview clash mechanics. The delineation between sexual life being separate enough from work life is more clear. The separation of "office politics" from "state politics" needs a comparatively more clear cut and egrocious violation to really get handled.

One tradition is that atleast in my country it is customary for the president to quit their membership from their party upon receiving the office. That it is seen inappropriate to retain formal ties to political parties while in office. Despite this parties know that getting the president elected from their party is ideologically favourable for them. That is while the politician has less latitude to only care about his special interest group as president than for example as a minister of the goverment (which they often had been as you need to be in the single digit top names of a party to be a serious presidential candidate) the effect isn't so great that it would wash out all the "color".

That you have some motivation for doesn't mean you dont' have any motivation against. For some people selfawarereness can be a accessible/solid/important enough value that it overcomes the resistance. Curiosity and intrigue can also work. If there is a strong right to ... read more


stars0
Reply