"What I am finding to be an issue is that, yes free speech is important... But not if it comes at the expense of being ethical towards other people."
This was the start of the conversation (above). Multiple times he's assumed the worst about me. Is that ethical? Is that respectful?
He made it clear that white people have an advantage which is a problem. He made it clear being rich was a bad thing. He made it clear that equality and equity are vital to a solid foundation. Yet to highly achieve would be, to be better or higher on a scale, to some degree, like wealth, than someone else.
How much more can someone achieve over others before it's a problem? How much wealthier can that someone end up before it's a problem? When is good enough, good enough, for anyone?
You can't then brag about being a high achieving rich white male and have someone honestly believe you're being genuine in this case. Even if you came from nothing on the street, you can't then take more than others or you're just becoming part of the problem. The only justification I could see being somewhat understandable would be if you were using all that extra power and wealth to specifically help those being highly oppressed. Doing good things for other people in this case, but reaping most of the rewards so you live like a king, isn't justified with those stated morals.
"In short, the guy is your typical hypocrite, they exist on the left and right side of the political spectrum."
As I pointed out to them, hypocrisy will soon be the norm for the majority. We're all guilty at times even if we're unaware of it. Hiding or running from it is just another addition to the problem, while practicing what you preach and accepting it is much easier said than done. Either that or make well thought out adjustments or changes to your morals to create a stronger foundation.
Why would you ask this if you've read through the conversation and understand the context as mentioned in your first point?
I've made it clear I'm open to options. Immediate pay or temporarily unpaid. It doesn't matter to me if I'm likely going to get what I want in the end and can make it work. If I'm unlikely to get it, or can't make it work, then I'm not doing it.
He made it clear that unpaid work is unacceptable, period.
Both baselines were already available. One of us is flexible and the other isn't in this case, so what do you hope to achieve here?
I asked you to answer your own question because you threw out a bunch of questions without any context to your position. This usually boarder on sea-lioning so wanted you to actually state your position on the subject instead of asking a bunch of questions as you have done again in your reply. This is the first time I have seen you actually make a declaration on your position instead of the appearance of you just throwing out stuff as a counter to an argument.
Also your position does not mean you are more flexible instead it just means you are willing to take more risk. To work for free on a promise of getting paid is just the amount of risk you are willing to accept. The thing is, there are a lot of people who do not have the flexibility to actually choose. You present your position where you have a choice but there are many who are placed in those situations where there is no choice it either do as the employer says or find yourself out of a job. This is why we have labor laws because of the exploitation employers have used over the years.
What I hope to achieve is for you to stop with the bolded part. This tactic as I mentioned gives a sea-lioning feeling to your arguments instead of just putting your arguments into a declaration of what YOU actually believe.