Yes.
You do realise your position violates multiple UN human rights?
Take a read through the lot of them. Please.
https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights/
People have died to maintain these rights. Please stop trying to tear them down. You're not woke. You're asleep.
YOU do realize that human rights don't include a blanket prohibition on people treating you differently due to your political opinions?
Also, how do you reconcile these "universal" human rights in a state that violates them?
Articles 12, 20, 21, 23, 29.
You do realise that while not a blanket prohibition on treating you differently, employment, wellbeing and political leanings are expressly covered for obvious reasons.
But politics is the process whereby we negotiate our competing beliefs and interests in a society. I can make an effort to silence the folks who make me feel unsafe, but that doesn't make those people go away. Even if they no longer work at my company, they still have a vote. Acting to assuage your immediate concerns without consideration for the long impact on the political discourse is foolish.
Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing. Unless that person is actually posing a threat to me through harassment or violence, I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.
On the other hand, deplatforming people and removing their resources does work in some cases. Others may disagree and consider it wise to assuage their immediate concerns. Your belief in its foolishness is valid, but cannot on its own be the guideline for wider social norms.
> Let's also remember that "unsafe" and "uncomfortable" are not the same thing.
Of course.
> I would much rather engage with them in a civil manner.
Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.
In what sense do you mean they "work"?
> Civility fetishism is an entirely different conversation. Suffice it to say that I think it's distinctly less valuable than commonly portrayed.
One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety".
They reduce the ability of extremists to radicalize young people, for example. On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed.
ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized.
> One could say the same about the fetishism of "safety".
Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.
Hm... I'm not going to say the problem of radicalization isn't real, it most certainly is, but I think we need to have a clear definition of what qualifies as radicalization.
> On a platform level, banning certain actors makes my life better because less fake news will show up in my feed.
That's a problem of filtering tools and suggestion algorithms.
> ETA: It also denies people some amount of income in many cases, now that platforms are often monetized.
I don't see that as a terminal goal.
> Yes, you could. But I believe that acting to protect one's safety is more justifiable than acting to protect "civility". Both are subjective, but the former is more personal.
Acting against legitimate threats to one's safety does absolutely override concerns of civility. But there are standards for determining whether an alleged threat is credible. Claiming that one's safety is threatened by a coworker merely because they voted for Trump (the initial example that waheoo provided) is absolutely ludicrous.
Goodluck with that, the only side radicalizing anyone right now is the left.
I would not feel unsafe around someone who voted for Hillary, though I might question their judgment.
I would feel unsafe around someone whose political views were that you should be fired if you voted for Trump. (I would also feel unsafe around someone whose political views were that you should be fired if you voted for Hillary. However, such people are few, and they currently have no traction with the HR department.)
I get that some people feel differently about Trump's politics. (Hey, I feel mighty concerned about his politics.) That's why the standard of what's "reasonable behavior" can't be shaped by how everybody feels. Otherwise, it just turns into a contest to see who can proclaim that they feel what they feel more strongly than the other side.
At some point, some element of determining what is rationally justified by the circumstances has to come into play. But that's hard, because everyone has radically different ideas of what "the circumstances" actually are.
Failing that, the only thing left is existing norms of behavior. And getting someone fired for their politics is well outside of that.
Cancel culture is a myth? Are you following the news at all?