Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres
Absolutely.
But, on general terms: what about going one step forward and mounting a campaign to force other people, say his employer, to act against him? Does that trouble you?
See, we've seen quite a few such campaigns in recent years from all kinds of pressure groups and *that* is what troubles me. Not just challenging ideas but retaliating for them; *punishing* people *solely* for their ideas.
Shouldn't there be a line somewhere if one wishes to take the high road?
|
I'm uncomfortable with that kind of escalation and I agree, pushing employers to take action, bullying people into supporting certain causes or else...yeah, a lynch mob whose cause you are sympathetic to is still a lynch mob.
It IS important to take the high road, to throw the information out there, to be sure you are being honest and factual, and trust in other people to make the right decision.
I think the appropriate level of response is public discussion, raising public awareness and let the chips fall where they may. (This is for the specific charge of publicly posting hateful and bigoted statements.)
In this particular case, no one is forced to do business with OSC -- but I do feel it is fair to make people aware of his beliefs and policies so they can make an "informed" purchasing decision.
This is the same reasoning why there are a number of companies I don't buy from **cough, Chik-Fil-A, Papa John's** ... especially knowing that there are local companies in my town run by genuinely decent guys that I can support. I don't necessarily go into detail with why I won't buy from said companies since politics is always a squeamish topic, but boy do I promote the virtues of the local guys I know and respect...fortunately, the locals' food is also vastly superior.