Teiritzamna: And once again, in response to your position, why do you hate everyone else's freedom of opinion - to wit, their feeling that this guy is a creeper?

The opinion of him is fine. It's the moral vigilantism that's advocated(and carried out) against him that i disagree with.

No matter what anyone says(the only exception being things that are illegal) on the internet under a rational expectation of anonynimity, should stay in it's respective place. Have a problem with the way he acts in a specific place, address that. Don't paint a picture of someone who drinks and smokes and behaves in a lewd manner in a bar, as someone who is that way everywhere, at church, on the job, in front of his kids, etc.

Threats and blackmail actually carried out are what was unreasonable. No one likes a tattletale, well, except when it falls in line with what you personally and morally agree with, apparently, then no punishment is too severe. If it's not criminal it's ok to make someone pay with their career for disagreeing with you in a place that's entirely irrelevant to anything he does professionally?

Get a grip if you think that's actually all reasonable. Get some counseling, go back on your anti-psychotics, whatever you need to do man, because you're farked in the head just a smidge.

I hope many people I've run across on the internet die a tragic and bloody death, get fired, or raped, or a thousand other tortuous events.

I, however, will never take a single step towards setting that into motion, and i don't advocate it as if lynch mobs are at all a reasonable thing to be a part of. For anyont to back up that kind of action, much less perform it, is just as despicable as anyone they're outraged by.

If there is a legality issue, take it to the cops. That is justice. If you lack any material that's even as low as dubious, and go to the employer instead because you are simply offended, that's just skeevy and pretentious revenge. The two concepts are not equitable at all.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: gulogulo: BraveNewCheneyWorld: It's kind of like saying that people shouldn't be shocked that some people want to bring back slavery. You're talking about one of our fundamental rights, the first in fact, which is there SPECIFICALLY TO DEFEND UNPOPULAR SPEECH.

From legal action. Not from social consequences. If you really believe that's how society should work, then have I got a bridge for you.

Here's the context you seem to have missed..

ParagonComplex: I'm arguing that people shouldn't be shocked that others feel they should be socially acceptable on social media.

So, if you don't get it yet, my point was that people should have no expectation that others be socially acceptable, since it's a fundamental tenet of our law that speech be unrestricted. I'm saying nothing of the consequence of that action.

That's another one with reading woes. Selectivity or inability, no one know's for sure, but it is clear that poster just does not get it.

Rockstone: BraveNewCheneyWorld: gadian: If you can't face the thought of what you do online getting back to your boss, wife, or grandmother, maybe you ought not be doing stuff that is so socially unacceptable that it will get you fired, divorced, or the guilty conscience of killing an old woman.

Not that I'm equating the two types of speech, but the founding fathers used pen names. Some of the shiat they said would get them killed, not just fired. I don't think what this guy posted had any real social value, but if we aren't willing to defend anonymity of people who say things of little or no social value, then what is the argument in defending those who do? More importantly, who gets to decide? Anonymity should be widely accepted as a good thing, and we have to take the good with the bad for the greater good. Every person who makes a statement under an anonymous name should be legally protected in the event of their outing, and penalties should be paid from their outers, even if it's for reasons no more than the fact that unpopular speech shouldn't be subject to a chilling effect, as the ability to recognize its source of origin gets more difficult to hide in the future, which is a certainty.

One was the government that would have killed them. One is a private organization firing them. Big difference.

We're not killing christians (at the moment), but firing them on account of their morals is ok?
What about the morality of gays? Is it ok to make them pay a societal price for voicing their morals?
I masturbate at home, should my employer have the right to fire me for doing such a thing?
I have children that, on occasion, just want to be naked. I suppose I should lose my job if they should shed their clothing, and be villified as if I am a leper.
Where is the line drawn? What is it ok to oppress and what is not?

The neat thing about the US, is that we do, usually, have a private life that's separate from our work place. Unless we're doing something illegal, many of those things done in private are protected by law. Unfortunately some perfectly legal things are not protected.

Sadly, along with that, despite the spirit of the law in that regard, we live in a society where it's OK to lose a debate, and go behind that person's back to their employer, and enact a ploy that is guaranteed to have virtually significant impact on that person's life. Accusation is almost as powerfully destructive as legal conviction to anyone's way of life.

That is why we're on about defending even the moronic in their statements. If we can't protect the weak, indeed, refuse to, and even advocate vengeance on them for holding different ideals, that whole "be nice in the first place" thing goes right out the window. Bunch of hypocrites in these threads.

gulogulo: I just see a couple of idiots who really don't understand the difference between law and society as a whole.

Willful ignorance is bliss.

gulogulo: Society makes its own rules that we all have to abide by.

Like not being gay, a religion other than yours, having an abortion, using birth control, what a person "should" consume(food to legal drugs like caffeine and nicotine)?

No, we do not have to abide by society's "rules". That is the whole point of pretty much all equal rights movements.

The guy was victimized by those that were infuriated with his speech. Someone set out to find his identity and do his best to ruin his real life, because the angry person/people felt offended. Morally, that is no different than violence for the same reason, say, bombing an abortion clinic. Someone got mad at someone else and decided to take matters into their own hands, to punish the "sinful".

Someone got butthurt and ran to someone who would deliver vengeance, as it were. Neither mature or rational. The internet at large has become a place where people share ideas and information. If you don't like what you see at X, you're free to NOT go there.

Report illegal actions to the authorities, sure, that is rational. Actively working to make someone else suffer is a sign of unhealthy obsession, agreeing with that vigilantism is a sign of delusion.

You know the morality issue is bad when fark mods redact posts that aren't really against TOS/rules, no real insulting, no nsfw links, etc. It's not my fault liberals are self contradicting when it comes to people who want freedoms different than their ideals.

My bad for having an opinion.

/DIAF mod