Paft: Yeah, slavery was the norm in ancient Rome too. Think we should emulate that, too? v: Nope. But intimidating is just a speech.
It's more than mere "speech" when the person uttering the threat has the means to back it up.
paft: Do you think we shouldn't take the right to vote "too serious?" v: Hell no! I simply think that any person at the age of consent able to post in LiveJournal is already immune to this ad
That ad is a famous piece of satire. Nobody believed that the dog would get shot if they didn't buy the magazine.
Threats from a boss that he's going to fire people if a candidate he dislikes gets elected is another matter entirely.
Paft: What kinds of meetings were these? Did they include photo-ops? v: Told you, I didn't give a shit. Never went there.
So I have no reason to believe that these were the equivalent of coal miners being forced to take a day off without pay so they could pretend to cheer for a presidential candidate their boss liked.
Paft: So you think the USSR's approach to political freedom is also something to emulate? Along with ancient Rome's? v: who told you this?
Your earlier response implied it, when you cheerfully cited the Soviet Union while describing what you claimed was a similar example of a boss coercing employees into supporting a candidate. That's why I'm asking.
v And just for the record - not EVERY word I post is something to emulate. Here is a word SLOTH and a word ROBOT and a word LAPTOP - no, I don't offer to emulate these.
It's not just a matter of the words, but of their context. The context in which you cited the Soviet Union strongly implied that you consider political coercion no big deal.
Paft: The fact that a threat is covert does not make it empty, v: But the fact you can't check your employee's votes - does.
How so, when the threat is to engage in mass layoffs if the candidate a boss dislikes gets elected? How would not knowing who each employee voted for prevent this?
Credits & Style Info
Talk Politics. A place to discuss politics without egomaniacal mods
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 20/10/12 20:51 (UTC)v: Nope. But intimidating is just a speech.
It's more than mere "speech" when the person uttering the threat has the means to back it up.
paft: Do you think we shouldn't take the right to vote "too serious?"
v: Hell no! I simply think that any person at the age of consent able to post in LiveJournal is already immune to this ad
That ad is a famous piece of satire. Nobody believed that the dog would get shot if they didn't buy the magazine.
Threats from a boss that he's going to fire people if a candidate he dislikes gets elected is another matter entirely.
Paft: What kinds of meetings were these? Did they include photo-ops?
v: Told you, I didn't give a shit. Never went there.
So I have no reason to believe that these were the equivalent of coal miners being forced to take a day off without pay so they could pretend to cheer for a presidential candidate their boss liked.
Paft: So you think the USSR's approach to political freedom is also something to emulate? Along with ancient Rome's?
v: who told you this?
Your earlier response implied it, when you cheerfully cited the Soviet Union while describing what you claimed was a similar example of a boss coercing employees into supporting a candidate. That's why I'm asking.
v And just for the record - not EVERY word I post is something to emulate. Here is a word SLOTH and a word ROBOT and a word LAPTOP - no, I don't offer to emulate these.
It's not just a matter of the words, but of their context. The context in which you cited the Soviet Union strongly implied that you consider political coercion no big deal.
Paft: The fact that a threat is covert does not make it empty,
v: But the fact you can't check your employee's votes - does.
How so, when the threat is to engage in mass layoffs if the candidate a boss dislikes gets elected? How would not knowing who each employee voted for prevent this?