Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We often hear of a CEO, politician, or celebrity of some sort being fired, demoted, or punished because they made a statement that was not received well by "oppressed group #1" or "oppressed group #2", etc. Is this a process of the free market, as many would argue, or is it that people are getting far too sensitive in this country and they want everyone to think the same? Who sets that moral compass? It seems that there are groups who want to define the tone for morality and values in the country.
People want to have their own beliefs, and at the same time desire others to believe the same as they. Is this acceptable in your opinion? Is any certain moral standpoint superior to another? Why do we punish those whose thoughts/ opinions don't line up with what may be considered popular? You can say this happens with a variety of social issues, just pick one. I personally believe it's dangerous to our freedom as a country and a people, to be reluctant to express personal views for fear of retribution.
We should always stand for justice - this is truth! But should we bully others until they agree with us on other issues? This is a very popular tactic being used today. Say something that suits their agenda, and you're safe. This has been done before in history - and had dire consequences eventually.
Check this out for some perspective on different cultures of morality and where my discussion is coming from: https://youtu.be/XeecFbviXt0
I don't think it's about what opinions "may be popular", as if it's about passing fads. The norms relating to what's acceptable to say in public discourse are changing, fortunately, in the direction of respecting others. You know, like many children were taught to do by their parents, except that historically, quite a few groups were considered by some to be unworthy of that basic respect, simply by accident of birth. Sounds kinda unfair doesn't it?
So, much of the country is on board with the idea of humanity moving forward, becoming more inclusive and *cough* "civilized", if you will, and considerate and thoughtful of others. In view of this reality, we expect our leaders to be on board with that, as well, and to be mindful of the improving norms especially when speaking in public. Many citizens also hope, that they would be equally mindful in private.
This is why it's considered scandalous, when some public figures speak like Neanderthals. This is why it's disturbing, when ordinary schmoes do the same. Generally, the majority of the population I think it's safe to assume, favors progress in human relations, not regress.
Define "bullying" for the purpose of this discussion, please. Clarification needed.
I don't think it's about what opinions "may be popular", as if it's about passing fads. The norms relating to what's acceptable to say in public discourse are changing, fortunately, in the direction of respecting others. You know, like many children were taught to do by their parents, except that historically, quite a few groups were considered by some to be unworthy of that basic respect, simply by accident of birth. Sounds kinda unfair doesn't it?
So, much of the country is on board with the idea of humanity moving forward, becoming more inclusive and *cough* "civilized", if you will, and considerate and thoughtful of others. In view of this reality, we expect our leaders to be on board with that, as well, and to be mindful of the improving norms especially when speaking in public. Many citizens also hope, that they would be equally mindful in private.
This is why it's considered scandalous, when some public figures speak like Neanderthals. This is why it's disturbing, when ordinary schmoes do the same. Generally, the majority of the population I think it's safe to assume, favors progress in human relations, not regress.
Define "bullying" for the purpose of this discussion, please. Clarification needed.
Your post offers very little above what the premise of my point is, that some people define moral issues for the masses, while punishing those who disagree with their same opinion. You changed "differing opinions" to "speaking like Neanderthals". There's a huge fundamental difference, in that one is the concept of personal opinion or moral/values, while the other only addresses the delivery and assumes the opposing viewpoint is held by an inferior party. That *kinda* proves my point.
In the frame that I'm using "bully" as the verb, it is very clear: Almost daily, we threaten people's jobs, positions, and even character if they veer off the road of popular opinion. And believe it or not, if someone doesn't agree with everything you agree with, it doesn't make them incompetent or regressing into ancient times. That is the epitome of condescension.
"Some people" have defined moral issues for the masses since time began: Roman Catholic church, slave owners, corporations who used to be able to fire people for being gay (not as of today though...but they'll fight that too), on and on.
We often hear of a CEO, politician, or celebrity of some sort being fired, demoted, or punished because they made a statement that was not received well by "oppressed group #1" or "oppressed group #2", etc. Is this a process of the free market, as many would argue, or is it that people are getting far too sensitive in this country and they want everyone to think the same? Who sets that moral compass? It seems that there are groups who want to define the tone for morality and values in the country.
People want to have their own beliefs, and at the same time desire others to believe the same as they. Is this acceptable in your opinion? Is any certain moral standpoint superior to another? Why do we punish those whose thoughts/ opinions don't line up with what may be considered popular? You can say this happens with a variety of social issues, just pick one. I personally believe it's dangerous to our freedom as a country and a people, to be reluctant to express personal views for fear of retribution.
We should always stand for justice - this is truth! But should we bully others until they agree with us on other issues? This is a very popular tactic being used today. Say something that suits their agenda, and you're safe. This has been done before in history - and had dire consequences eventually.
Check this out for some perspective on different cultures of morality and where my discussion is coming from: https://youtu.be/XeecFbviXt0
How about the moral autonomy of Jane Fonda? You know what I'm talking about. And, no, I don't have any problem with her status to a lot of offended Americans as a persona non grata.
How about the burnings of Beatles records when John Lennon opined that his band was bigger than Jesus. Was he not entitled to his own opinion?
How about statements made by Bill Maher after 9/11 (he lost his TV series) and by the Dixie Chicks in 2003 (boycotts and blacklisting for years)?
How about Colin Kaepernick, excoriated and hounded out of a job?
How about Kathy Griffin?
Your present tense - is destroying - portrays this as some sort of current development.
Where was the 'moral autonomy' during McCarthyism? During the Hays Code, when motion pictures could not get distributed unless they hewed to a long laundry list of wholesomeness? Where was the 'moral authority' before the Obscenity Cases ~1960, wherein it was impossible to get certain novels with 'naughty' words and 'objectionable' published in the United States, not because of personal acts such as boycotts but because it was against the law, and those novels could be seized and the publishers or importers or sellers could be fine or criminally prosecuted?
Where was the 'moral autonomy' of gays who were denied the right of marriage before 2015, and that of interracial couples denied the right to marry each other before 1967? How much 'moral autonomy' do you think was granted to a black man and a white woman holding hands and walking down the street in any town in the South in 1950?
Where was the 'moral autonomy' of Ford workers when founder Henry Ford was running things, and the company's Sociological Department would send agents out to investigate workers to make sure they were behaving 'properly' - 'proper' behavior including not drinking alcohol, weren't speaking any language other than English at home, that your wife was not employed, that you were not engaged in any 'immoral' sexual relationships?
What about all those 'moral compasses' that were imposed on people? And you want to compare the more public pressure of today - which is moral autonomy manifest, is it not? - with the past, when it was the law and the threat of incarceration, when it was corporate morality enforcers making employment contingent on a long list of behavioral lines to be toed, when records were being burned in unmistakably fascist symbolism?
I swear, I am continually baffled by the complete lack of historical perspective when it comes to the coerciveness of public opinion.
How about the moral autonomy of Jane Fonda? You know what I'm talking about. And, no, I don't have any problem with her status to a lot of offended Americans as a persona non grata.
How about the burnings of Beatles records when John Lennon opined that his band was bigger than Jesus. Was he not entitled to his own opinion?
How about statements made by Bill Maher after 9/11 (he lost his TV series) and by the Dixie Chicks in 2003 (boycotts and blacklisting for years)?
How about Colin Kaepernick, excoriated and hounded out of a job?
How about Kathy Griffin?
Your present tense - is destroying - portrays this as some sort of current development.
Where was the 'moral autonomy' during McCarthyism? During the Hays Code, when motion pictures could not get distributed unless they hewed to a long laundry list of wholesomeness? Where was the 'moral authority' before the Obscenity Cases ~1960, wherein it was impossible to get certain novels with 'naughty' words and 'objectionable' published in the United States, not because of personal acts such as boycotts but because it was against the law, and those novels could be seized and the publishers or importers or sellers could be fine or criminally prosecuted?
Where was the 'moral autonomy' of gays who were denied the right of marriage before 2015, and that of interracial couples denied the right to marry each other before 1967? How much 'moral autonomy' do you think was granted to a black man and a white woman holding hands and walking down the street in any town in the South in 1950?
Where was the 'moral autonomy' of Ford workers when founder Henry Ford was running things, and the company's Sociological Department would send agents out to investigate workers to make sure they were behaving 'properly' - 'proper' behavior including not drinking alcohol, weren't speaking any language other than English at home, that your wife was not employed, that you were not engaged in any 'immoral' sexual relationships?
What about all those 'moral compasses' that were imposed on people? And you want to compare the more public pressure of today - which is moral autonomy manifest, is it not? - with the past, when it was the law and the threat of incarceration, when it was corporate morality enforcers making employment contingent on a long list of behavioral lines to be toed, when records were being burned in unmistakably fascist symbolism?
I swear, I am continually baffled by the complete lack of historical perspective when it comes to the coerciveness of public opinion.
What's ironic about your post is that you totally agree with my point, but at the same time assume I have a politicized approach and get angry and defensive. Relax, I agree that throughout history, people have been bullied or shamed due to their opinion, and that's my point of discussion. You are on the right track. Thanks for the input.
Soooo...what would YOU consider a mere matter of personal opinion, not worthy of losing your job or your standing, etc.
How do YOU feel bullied?
I actually don't feel bullied, because I'm a reasonable debater who uses rational thinking and tend not to be influenced by emotion and biased media/ culture.
"Some people" have defined moral issues for the masses since time began: Roman Catholic church, slave owners, corporations who used to be able to fire people for being gay (not as of today though...but they'll fight that too), on and on.
Bingo. The only thing that has changed is the trending narrative or headline. What's amusing is that many groups who have applied countless efforts to change certain behaviors, do the same thing to promote a different perspective, one they find morally or ethically superior.
Absolutely. One hopes that over time, humanity becomes more humane. Hence the abolishment of slavery. Votes for women. Attempts to irradiate racism and homophobia.
As we grow and evolve into a more civilized world.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Bingo. The only thing that has changed is the trending narrative or headline. What's amusing is that many groups who have applied countless efforts to change certain behaviors, do the same thing to promote a different perspective, one they find morally or ethically superior.
