Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iuhhfni wrote

Sounds mighty authoritarian of you.

If you think it's dangerous they can voice their opinion, think how much more dangerous it would be to set the precedent for them to prevent you from voicing yours

Power is not a zero sum game. Expect to wear the shackles you wield.

9

chefmarksamson t1_iuhq3hn wrote

I didn’t see the part of their post that said there should be a law making it illegal for radio stations to run ads they don’t like. Where was that? It looked to me like they were just saying they personally hold stations responsible for the content of the ads they run. That’s..kind of the opposite of authoritarianism, actually.

4

kashmir772 t1_iuhllfn wrote

They never said that they can’t run those ads. Just that they can’t run those ads and then claim that isn’t their position. If you are a company and you allow a hateful message to be associated with you, expect the people affected by that hate to be angry with you. Expected those people to no longer support that company and to speak out against that company because of their association with hate. There is nothing authoritarian about that. Just capitalism.

3

JustYourNeighbor t1_iuhlcr0 wrote

Woosh

That's the sound of "the point" going right over your head.

−3

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iuhpqk9 wrote

If there's a point I'm missing here, it isn't a good one. I don't like people who advocate for the silencing of others.

Suggesting consequences to media outlets that carry campaign ads you don't like is advocating for exactly that.

2

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iuhu0bp wrote

They shouldn't be punished, freedom of speech exists. But don't get upset if your userbase gets upset and stops using your service.

4

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iui3dhq wrote

I didn't say punished, I said you believe they should have consequences. I disagree. I may not like what is said by people on the left side of the aisle, but I do not think their should be consequences for running their ads. This polarization is not sustainable and people need to knock it off. Just get spotify if you can't stand to hear ads on the radio, and watch Netflix or HBO if you can't stand them on TV. Or just get thicker skin. That's the best alternative honestly. A little thick skin goes a long way.

2

Interesting-Stop-920 OP t1_iui5o8i wrote

So I don't listen to the radio myself. It's not about having thick skin, trust me I do. It's about airing political ads not tied to a candidate. But also, as for consequences I'm talking about listeners choosing to stop listening to them. They can't cry and be like, but we don't support that anti trans legislation but we took money to air it. Sorry, but I'd you lose listeners that's on you.

−1

burritoace t1_iuieh6z wrote

Your position here basically ends up in the exact same spot - accusing everyone who expresses an opinion you disagree with of trying to "silence" others is just another way to stop people from expressing that opinion. You can't claim to hold the high ground when you're doing the same thing!

0

Lil_Phantoms_Lawyer t1_iuip4yb wrote

I think they should be welcome to share their bad opinion, and I'm not going to boycott or blame a platform that allows them to do so. Instead, I'm going to engage with them and tell them why they are wrong. It's not the same thing as saying Reddit can't let people share bad opinions and claim they don't represent those opinions.

1

burritoace t1_iuiy5mw wrote

Are you intentionally misreading the original post? It is directly engaging with the ad and doesn't call for a boycott at all. It is no different in degree from what you are doing here.

0