The World is Stupid

[DrZoidberg]

Why the need to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted?

The individual destroys their own livelihood with behavior disruptive to the workplace. It is worse than having an employee who is technically incompetent as these behaviors affect not just the individual’s performance but the performance of those around him.
No public shaming need take place. If your comments/behavior affects your work environment, this can be explained to you in private in the form of a formal counseling.

Nearly half of all job candidates are screened for social media accounts. More than a third of those are screened out for their social media activity.

A couple of years ago I applied for a job where the first thing they did was to check my social media. If any information I'd put out there was accurate or could be traced to me, they wouldn't hire me. Any opinion what so ever. An interesting approach. I got the job. This is the world we have created.

 

[KeepTalking]

Don't you think that is social pressure?

Sure. But a type of social pressure that encourages dialogue and honesty.

Then you seem to disagree with this fellow:

Social pressure and public shaming is also force.

Instead of shutting people up you don't agree with.

If they decide to shut up after I apply social pressure, that is on them. Why should I have to shut up when they spew bigoted speech?

In conflict management one of the first things we learn that is that one side might, instead or introspection and honest reflection resorts to power games. Raising ones voice, threatening language, threatening behavior, actual violence. All of these tactics kill discussion and debate. It creates a "might makes right" environment. It is toxic and unhealthy. It leads to a bad world. It also resolves zero conflicts. It only puts a lid on it, which over time leads to accumulating conflicts which eventually leads to some sort of violent cataclysm.

Why do you think that counters anything that I have advocated?

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

1) "I never said that"
2) Says "that"

Do you really want a world where the only people who can be publicly honest, without first checking their opinions against the PC list, is the extremely rich, who are so rich they're not sensitive about losing their job? You don't need to have read much Marxist theory to see the problem with that one.

I did not say it, and I still have not.

Do you really not understand that my saying "(there is not) any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public" is quite different from saying that anyone "need(s) to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Please explain how one can challenge bigotry without applying social pressure, or shaming the person espousing bigotry.

I ask you to to so because you have made clear that in your world those things constitute force, and have been arguing that they should not be done as a result.

Does that make sense?

By saying that bigotry is wrong? Don't you think that works?

In America, that has been literally interpreted by some on the right-wing as discrimination of right-wingers. That if they aren't allowed to withhold rights of gays (or previously 50 years ago, blacks), there was a restriction on their own rights.

 

[Elixir]

Please explain how one can challenge bigotry without applying social pressure, or shaming the person espousing bigotry.

I ask you to to so because you have made clear that in your world those things constitute force, and have been arguing that they should not be done as a result.

Does that make sense?

By saying that bigotry is wrong? Don't you think that works?

In America, that has been literally interpreted by some on the right-wing as discrimination of right-wingers. That if they aren't allowed to withhold rights of gays (or previously 50 years ago, blacks), there was a restriction on their own rights.

They think it's an affront to the righteousness of their (white supremacist) "cause" to bring up violent political extremism and cast it in a bad light.
They're losers. and really really really bad ones at that.

 

[TV and credit cards]

The individual destroys their own livelihood with behavior disruptive to the workplace.

Speech outside of workplace is not disruptive to the workplace. Same people who criticized 49ers for letting Kav go for protesting while on the clock are positively ecstatic for people losing their livelihoods for private speech outside the workplace.

Sure speech outside of the workplace can be disruptive to the workplace. That you do not utter disruptive comments within the workplace does not walled them off from the workplace. There's no out of bounds here. People have the ability to and do spew their opinions to the world on the internet and you contend coworkers/employers are obligated to ignore it all? These comments are no more private than if you were speaking to your neighbor over the fence. Your neighbor is under no obligation to you.
So Facebook made the world your neighbor. You put your real name out there and commenced to voicing your opinion to your new neighbors. At what point was your place of employment walled off for you? You willfully, gleefully gave up your right to privacy and now you expect some degree of privacy?

Nearly half of all job candidates are screened for social media accounts. More than a third of those are screened out for their social media activity.

Which is a very disturbing practice to begin with. That people may lose their jobs for for example tweets critical of Jacob Blake is beyond the pale.
ASU radio station board votes to remove manager over tweet about Kenosha police shooting victim

She did not say anything bigoted at all. She only stated an opinion, based on actual facts about St. Jacob Blake, and lost her position over it.
Should somebody lose their job because they point out that Jacob Blake had a warrant for sexual assault? Or anything contrary to "he didn't do nothing, about to turn his life around, church every week" narrative pushed by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo?

We enabled this. We put our lives out there and said come and get it. The the only true victim here is yours truly who's resume would similarly be round-filed for having no Facebook, Twitter, etc. accounts.

 

[Politesse]

That isn't how the hand sign in question is displayed...

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Sure speech outside of the workplace can be disruptive to the workplace. That you do not utter disruptive comments within the workplace does not walled them off from the workplace. There's no out of bounds here. People have the ability to and do spew their opinions to the world on the internet and you contend coworkers/employers are obligated to ignore it all? These comments are no more private than if you were speaking to your neighbor over the fence. Your neighbor is under no obligation to you.
So Facebook made the world your neighbor. You put your real name out there and commenced to voicing your opinion to your new neighbors. At what point was your place of employment walled off for you? You willfully, gleefully gave up your right to privacy and now you expect some degree of privacy?

Nearly half of all job candidates are screened for social media accounts. More than a third of those are screened out for their social media activity.

Which is a very disturbing practice to begin with. That people may lose their jobs for for example tweets critical of Jacob Blake is beyond the pale.
ASU radio station board votes to remove manager over tweet about Kenosha police shooting victim

She did not say anything bigoted at all. She only stated an opinion, based on actual facts about St. Jacob Blake, and lost her position over it.
Should somebody lose their job because they point out that Jacob Blake had a warrant for sexual assault? Or anything contrary to "he didn't do nothing, about to turn his life around, church every week" narrative pushed by the likes of Anderson Cooper and Chris Cuomo?

We enabled this. We put our lives out there and said come and get it. The the only true victim here is yours truly who's resume would similarly be round-filed for having no Facebook, Twitter, etc. accounts.

It is funny how defensive people become about being judged because they decided to blossom into their true identities on social media. They were willing to express any number of dubious or vile opinions because they thought their expression would be relatively hidden and anonymous from the real world. They thought the Internet and social media would be a "safe space" for their true self, while they could continue hiding how they felt in the office.

The whining of 'how it isn't fair!' because of the stuff (perhaps even overly concentrated and saturated) they openly put out into the public.

 

[Emily Lake]

Why the need to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted?

The individual destroys their own livelihood with behavior disruptive to the workplace. It is worse than having an employee who is technically incompetent as these behaviors affect not just the individual’s performance but the performance of those around him.
No public shaming need take place. If your comments/behavior affects your work environment, this can be explained to you in private in the form of a formal counseling.

Nearly half of all job candidates are screened for social media accounts. More than a third of those are screened out for their social media activity.

A couple of years ago I applied for a job where the first thing they did was to check my social media. If any information I'd put out there was accurate or could be traced to me, they wouldn't hire me. Any opinion what so ever. An interesting approach. I got the job. This is the world we have created.

Pretty much. My social media presence is effectively non-existent.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A couple of years ago I applied for a job where the first thing they did was to check my social media. If any information I'd put out there was accurate or could be traced to me, they wouldn't hire me. Any opinion what so ever. An interesting approach. I got the job. This is the world we have created.

WTF??

So they wouldn't hire me if I gave correct directions for a hike? Or correct trail conditions? (The snow is melting on our summer hiking area. There are a decent number of questions about given trails and posts of people reporting what they encountered on trails they hiked. Very relevant information to those going out there or even maybe going there--I've encountered a cop from the substation up there who was overseeing a rescue operation and came over and asked me about the trail conditions. (Given the time of day plus my gear it he came to a correct conclusion about where I had been.))

 

[Treedbear]

A couple of years ago I applied for a job where the first thing they did was to check my social media. If any information I'd put out there was accurate or could be traced to me, they wouldn't hire me. Any opinion what so ever. An interesting approach. I got the job. This is the world we have created.

Pretty much. My social media presence is effectively non-existent.

I've heard that some employers won't hire you if you don't have a social media account.

 

[Derec]

It is funny how defensive people become about being judged because they decided to blossom into their true identities on social media. They were willing to express any number of dubious or vile opinions

It's "funny" how saying that more white people should be murdered is not considered a "vile" opinion and those who express it don't lose their jobs while even stating facts like the fact that Jacob Blake had as sexual assault warrant is a fileable offence.

 

[Derec]

Sure speech outside of the workplace can be disruptive to the workplace.

If you can be fired for expressing any opinion your employer doesn't like, then freedom of speech is only theoretical.
Note that you and other leftists on here would not be supporting this if the shoe was on the other foot. If a bunch of leftists or #BLM activists were getting fired for expressing opinions or donating to activists accused of crimes, you would be calling it fascism. But as long as it is almost exclusively hitting those not on the left, you are fine with it

Nobody lost their job for donating to the two NYC lawyers who handed out Molotovs and threw one at a police car. But a police officer was fired for donating to a kid who was defending himself from Antifa felons who attacked him.

Likewise, people don't lose jobs for advocating rioting and looting, or saying how all white children have the original sin of "whiteness" and that there should be more murders of white people. But if you dare call Jacob Bake or George Floyd a criminal you risk your livelihood.

That you do not utter disruptive comments within the workplace does not walled them off from the workplace. There's no out of bounds here.

So any politically incorrect speech may get you fired? Do you not see how much this stifles expression? How it is harmful to make people walk on eggshells?
Oh, you would realize it if it was your ox who was being gored! But as long as it is the others who are getting fired for saying for example that Jacob Blake had a warrant and a knife, you see nothing wrong stifling speech!

People have the ability to and do spew their opinions to the world on the internet and you contend coworkers/employers are obligated to ignore it all? These comments are no more private than if you were speaking to your neighbor over the fence. Your neighbor is under no obligation to you.

Your neighbor should not be able to get you fired for an opinion. And neither should you be fired over an opinion on Facebook.

You willfully, gleefully gave up your right to privacy and now you expect some degree of privacy?

So did say Ariel Atkins when she said that she supported looting 100%. But her job is safe. Because firing her would not be woke. Firing somebody critical of #BLM on the other hand is woke. Wokeism is totalitarianism.

We enabled this. We put our lives out there and said come and get it. The the only true victim here is yours truly who's resume would similarly be round-filed for having no Facebook, Twitter, etc. accounts.

Left wing and woke expression does not lead to firings. So you are safe. As are other people (Elixir, Jimmy Higgins) applauding this.

 

[Derec]

They think it's an affront to the righteousness of their (white supremacist) "cause" to bring up violent political extremism and cast it in a bad light.
They're losers. and really really really bad ones at that.

Having an opinion critical of the current political correct and woke orthodoxy is not the same as being a "white supremacist".
We live in a time where white people and those center-right have to walk on eggshells while black supremacists can spew their venom openly without any risk to their career as companies are afraid of being labeled "racist" by the woke mob if they fire a black extremist.

You call people who oppose this "losers" but in reality America is a loser if this continues to go on. "Critical race theory" has invaded even the math curriculum with the result that the Chinese will be eating our lunch. If we do not wake up from this woke nightmare and fast, I do not see this ending well for USA.

 

[none]

They think it's an affront to the righteousness of their (white supremacist) "cause" to bring up violent political extremism and cast it in a bad light.
They're losers. and really really really bad ones at that.

Having an opinion critical of the current political correct and woke orthodoxy is not the same as being a "white supremacist".
We live in a time where white people and those center-right have to walk on eggshells while black supremacists can spew their venom openly without any risk to their career as companies are afraid of being labeled "racist" by the woke mob if they fire a black extremist.

You call people who oppose this "losers" but in reality America is a loser if this continues to go on. "Critical race theory" has invaded even the math curriculum with the result that the Chinese will be eating our lunch. If we do not wake up from this woke nightmare and fast, I do not see this ending well for USA.

is this English?

 

[DrZoidberg]

If they decide to shut up after I apply social pressure, that is on them. Why should I have to shut up when they spew bigoted speech?

I'm not sure what you've misunderstood about my position. At no point have I advocated for anyone to ever shut up. Quite the contrary.

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

1) "I never said that"
2) Says "that"

Do you really want a world where the only people who can be publicly honest, without first checking their opinions against the PC list, is the extremely rich, who are so rich they're not sensitive about losing their job? You don't need to have read much Marxist theory to see the problem with that one.

I did not say it, and I still have not.

Do you really not understand that my saying "(there is not) any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public" is quite different from saying that anyone "need(s) to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted"?

No, I don't understand the difference. You're juxtaposing passive aggressiveness vs plain old aggressiveness. The result is the same. It leads to a totalitarian culture. I always prefer aggressiveness to passive aggressiveness every time. At least you know who your enemies are. Passive aggressive social control turns manipulates people into self hatred

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

They think it's an affront to the righteousness of their (white supremacist) "cause" to bring up violent political extremism and cast it in a bad light.
They're losers. and really really really bad ones at that.

Having an opinion critical of the current political correct and woke orthodoxy is not the same as being a "white supremacist".
We live in a time where white people and those center-right have to walk on eggshells while black supremacists can spew their venom openly without any risk to their career as companies are afraid of being labeled "racist" by the woke mob if they fire a black extremist.

You call people who oppose this "losers" but in reality America is a loser if this continues to go on. "Critical race theory" has invaded even the math curriculum with the result that the Chinese will be eating our lunch. If we do not wake up from this woke nightmare and fast, I do not see this ending well for USA.

is this English?

When pasting into Microsoft Word it assured me that it is English, but asked if I needed some help.

 

[TV and credit cards]

They think it's an affront to the righteousness of their (white supremacist) "cause" to bring up violent political extremism and cast it in a bad light.
They're losers. and really really really bad ones at that.

Having an opinion critical of the current political correct and woke orthodoxy is not the same as being a "white supremacist".
We live in a time where white people and those center-right have to walk on eggshells while black supremacists can spew their venom openly without any risk to their career as companies are afraid of being labeled "racist" by the woke mob if they fire a black extremist.

You call people who oppose this "losers" but in reality America is a loser if this continues to go on. "Critical race theory" has invaded even the math curriculum with the result that the Chinese will be eating our lunch. If we do not wake up from this woke nightmare and fast, I do not see this ending well for USA.

This ethnomathics is a four page proposal. It’s not even in the early stage of curriculum development and you have the Chinese “eating our lunch” already.
We don’t even know what it is yet. Calm down.

 

[TV and credit cards]

Since we are in "Reply With Partial Quote" mode today.





These two things are not the same. In mine, we have comments/behaviors that disrupt the flow and function of the workplace (and perhaps profit). In yours, we have a boss who does not like employee and can fire employee for speech boss finds disagreeable. Disruptive. Disagreeable.
Disruptive.
Disagreeable.

You then go on with a laundry list of incidents that supports what looks like a straw man. But I'll even address your straw man for a moment. When reading these stories of persecuted white people, bear in mind, you do not know these people. You've read a story. You may have gotten a few more details a week or so later but you do not know them a fraction of what the person who fired them does. In many instances, I'll bet the boss had been looking for an excuse to fire this particular pain in the ass for years. Finally found something that would stick and used it. Why do I think this? Well because I spent 23+ years working for an outfit that is one of the hardest to get fired from, the US military. I've had these people work for me. These people you cannot get rid of. They are of no particular cultural background, unless Asshole counts.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'd lose that bet. But just know that when you read these stories of persecuted white people, take them with a grain of salt as we all should with most such stories. Know that you do not have the background information the person doing the firing does, aside from what the persecuted party might put out on social media.

 

[KeepTalking]

I'm not sure what you've misunderstood about my position. At no point have I advocated for anyone to ever shut up. Quite the contrary.

The issue may lie in your insistence that I should not socially pressure, or shame those who are spewing bigoted speech, as that is apparently an application of force, and applying force as a civilian could land me in trouble with law enforcement. Therefor it seems that you are advocating that I shut up and let the racist spew their bigoted speech.

I never said there was any need to do that. I also don't think there is any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public, as that employer may have clients and other employees who may leave that company as a result of the bigoted speech of that one individual.

1) "I never said that"
2) Says "that"

Do you really want a world where the only people who can be publicly honest, without first checking their opinions against the PC list, is the extremely rich, who are so rich they're not sensitive about losing their job? You don't need to have read much Marxist theory to see the problem with that one.

I did not say it, and I still have not.

Do you really not understand that my saying "(there is not) any need for an employer to retain an employee who spews bigoted speech in public" is quite different from saying that anyone "need(s) to try to destroy the livelihood of anybody saying or doing something that might be interpreted as bigoted"?

No, I don't understand the difference. You're juxtaposing passive aggressiveness vs plain old aggressiveness. The result is the same. It leads to a totalitarian culture. I always prefer aggressiveness to passive aggressiveness every time. At least you know who your enemies are. Passive aggressive social control turns manipulates people into self hatred

It has nothing to do with aggression, passive or otherwise. My position is that there is no need to force an employer to retain an employee who may harm their brand by spewing bigoted speech in public. Conversely, there is no need to force an employer to fire an employee who spews bigoted speech in public. In both cases my position is one of allowing the employer to make the decision, so long as they are not running afoul of reasonable labor laws when doing so. In order for an employer to make that decision, they would need to be aware that their employee is spewing bigoted speech in public, and it is within my right of free speech to inform that employer when their employee is doing so. In no way am I applying force when I provide that information to the employer.

 

[TomC]

So when teaching a child not to throw temper tantrums... what do you do? I feel like this would be useful and relevant information, given that people crying about "oppression" because you can't flash gang signs on TV without being criticized for it clearly were never taught not to throw temper tantrums, that being essentially an adult version of the same.

This is where we differ.

You see a game show contestant touching two fingers as a temper tantrum. I see a flood of letters demanding an apology as the temper tantrum. An illustration of what's wrong with Wokeness.
A temper tantrum based on mindreading.

The guy did something with his hand. I'm not a mindreader, I don't know why. But he's smart, informed, successful, and articulate. Those are not characteristics I associate with overt white supremacy. So when he says "I didn't mean that" I believe him.

And the producers of the show obviously had nothing to do with it.

What I'm seeing is Wokesters promoting their culture of victimhood and entitlement. More like the Wokesters who threw a temper tantrum over the "MAGA hat wearing teen" who "stalked and assaulted a Native American elder" in Washington D.C. a few years ago.
Tom