Brasas: Nah, for sure it wasn't recent chronologically, but then again, you're becoming more active after somewhat of an hiatus.
OK, I just find it strange that you would ask whether I realised you had to call me flat out anti capitalist before we go here, if it didn't happen recently. I just find that a really unusual comment to make.
Brasas: On the pizzeria being burned I'm fairly sure I read about threats of it being spread via twitter. Or maybe it was incitement, not threats. Google for it, I'm sure you'll find it, sorry I don't have a link to give you.
Sorry you said "I can point at pizzerias being burned". So no pizzerias were burned, someone threatened to burn a pizzeria? So when you said you could point at pizzerias being burned, you actually can't point at pizzerias being burned? Was that a mistake, did you think a pizzeria had been burned, or were you actually trying to mislead me?
Brasas: As far I can understand the Indiana law is trying to protect individuals with religious beliefs from being coerced into performing actions that go against their beliefs. The examples of discussion, of which the whole pizzeria brouhaha exemplifies, had to do with catering to gay weddings, which is a cause celebre of the same groups that oppose GG, Sad Puppies etc... let's call them SJWs? I might be assuming, but let's take you as an illustrative example. We all know you consider GG to be a reactionary political group right? You seem to have similar opinion of the Sad Puppies campaign underlying motivations, yes? So here's a question, do you consider it legitimate that anyone should be able to refuse catering a gay wedding? Do you support coercing them into "tolerant" actions?
Are there religions that have rules about catering at gay weddings? As far as I am aware, there are parts of the bible that are interpreted as condemning homosexual sex, but I'm not aware of any part of the bible that says you shouldn't sell a pizza at a wedding between two men. If anything, I would have thought the Christians who are against gay sex would want gay people to get married, everyone knows the amount of sex you have after marriage drops massively. Its completely illogical to think that allowing gay people to marriage would increase the amount of gay sex going on.
I think people can have whatever beliefs they wish, but if you use public infrastructure in your business, you shouldn't be permitted to discriminate against the public based on someone's race, religion or sexuality, etc. The Boers used the bible to justify apartheid in South Africa. Some people used the bible to justify slavery. I would have a problem with people be allowed to practise either of those things in the name of religious freedom.
That said, I don't think people should be coerced into sleeping with someone of the same sex. I think that covers certain Christian's objection to homosexuality.
In summary, I have no problem with people exercising their religious freedom, provided it doesn't affect other people. If, for example, a religion believes everyone should be converted to their religion or be killed, I think the freedom to practise that aspect of their religion should be curtailed. I am sure you would agree.
Brasas: Libertarians aren't against regulation (I assume you mean legal). They're against coercion. At least me. Self regulation is voluntary and therefore perfectly fine. I make no regulatory demand on journalism, and I wonder where you got that idea (projection much?) I make an ethical demand on journalism. I go further, that as we have discussed the requirement of objectivity is actually a part of the codes of conduct adopted by journalists themselves.
I think its fair to say that some libertarians are against regulation. I also think you misunderstand how regulation works if you don't see it connection with coercion. All regulations set out a consequence for not following them. I'm not sure which codes of conduct you are talking about that requires objectivity. The SPJ Code of Ethics specifically rejected objectivity, but lets move on from that.
Brasas: Now, you are clearly refocusing into the specific journalism angles, although I think it's obvious in context that we left those specifics behind a while ago. In a way you are proving my point that you don't want to engage the actual ethical diagreement, and it seems to me you are going back to the ethics of journalism to avoid the broader ethical aspects.
I'm more than happy to move on from the discussion of journalism. It seems to me that you are the one who keeps taking us back there. I only mentioned journalism because you said "Me: Social justice is bad. This is about ethics in gaming / journalism / life / politics... whatever." You're talking about it again above. Let's move on.
Brasas: If we are talking specifically about journalism, then yes, I do believe all subjectivity is ethically wrong, and there is a let's say universal (inside journalism) need for objectivity.
If we are talking about expression and communication more in general, then obviously the objectivity need stops being about professional ethics and becomes about political ethics.
Put another way, I understood your point a long time ago, and I disagree that "a journalist writing from a genuinely held perspective (whether its social justice, environmental justice, animal justice, men's rights, feminism, etc) is ethically neutral." Didn't we even discuss a relative of yours in PM? A good (that word again, how surprising) journalist will write both sides and be objective, he should be ethically neutral to be a good journalist, which yes, may interfere with being a good human. As you see you also understood my point, and the confusion to me comes from your muddying the waters between our discussion specifically over journalism, versus the broader opinions we have over what is right or wrong in society.
I think we covered that point. I think subjectivity is fine, you think its unethical. The people who drafted the current SPJ Code of Ethics agree with me. It may well be changed to conform with your view in the future. Lets move on from a discussion of journalistic ethics, I think we have both said everything we want to say.
Brasas: And again, you and your side are the ones that defend mission journalism. You are the ones that want to impose in some way a particular set of values (who are the comfortable? who are the afflicted? who are the privileged? the victims?) onto journalism so that specific "sides" should not be represented or given a voice, or worse (for objective truth - if not pragmatically) misrepresented. You call that just, you call that good, you might even call it true liberty, you can call it whatever you want. I'm not the one defending that. I'm attacking that as lack of objectivity in journalism since the start. So it's both, I would find any subjectivity "bad" (in journalism), but the fact it's a "bad" subjectivity IMO only makes it worse in context.
I don't think I want to impose any set of values onto journalism. I have never said that, I'm not the one fighting against SJW values in journalism. I'm not fighting against anti-SJW values in journalism. I have always said that I think more diversity in journalism is a good thing, that #gg'ers should read articles that are written by people who have their same anti-SJW belief system, rather than try to shout down SJW journalists. I don't see this as having anything to do with ethics, I think variety is great and people should read articles written from whatever perspective they wish.
Brasas: On SciFi. For an irrelevant thing there sure seems to be a lot of teeth gnashing over it wouldn't you agree? Is that just media sensationalism or perhaps a sign of a deeper unease? Maybe ideological...
I don't think there is much teeth gnashing at all. There is almost no coverage. A few articles on the net in a sea of millions of articles is not what I would call a lot of teeth gnashing. Nobody else on gog has mentioned it, as far as I am aware, either. I would say there is an appropriately small amount of teeth gnashing about it.
