|
im gaye posted:good to know it is my human right to tell my boss to eat my filthy rear end in a top hat (it is) but also my human right to remain employed after doing so there's a point here somewhere in this post but its very well hidden by the posters autism
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
Earwicker posted:You are entirely mistaken about what I am saying. I do not remotely think it is "perfectly fine" for private companies to attack people like that. I am saying that the First Amendment doesn't stop them from doing so. no if you think my boss can fire me for telling a client about my meaty vagina flaps then you ergo therefore must also think they can attack people with weapons and own slaves you hypocrite
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Lichy posted:you don't have to be a communist or marxist to understand that labour laws and human rights are good things and to be against them is idiotic unless you run a business but, but, my margins
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
its me, i think verbally abusing people is my human right
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:08
|
|
|
Lichy posted:there's a point here somewhere in this post but its very well hidden by the posters autism keep looking!
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
im gaye posted:good to know it is my human right to tell the policeman to eat my filthy rear end in a top hat (it is) but also my human right to remain not arrested after doing so
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:But this doesn't change the fact thjat the First Amendment doesn't cover this issue. No matter how strongly you enforce it, there is simply absolutely nothing in the text of the Amendment that prevents a private company from firing their own employee for being Jewish. It says that there will be no law prohibiting somebody from having free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to worship and the freedom of press. It's kind of backwards to interpret this as so limited as to not apply to non-government entities when these are considered human rights and integral to what makes America "great". The Constitution is subject to varying interpretations and this is a good thing--I choose, and I think most would--that it is intended to provide the greatest degree of individual freedom possible. If you do agree, then big business or big government, it matters not--a man's freedom is his own. Liberty and justice for all, remember.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
~i will take the white cocaine and go to the blue sea and colourful corals~
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:11
|
|
|
you are either saying insulting an officer is an offense worthy of arrest or you are equating termination of an employee/employer relationship with being arrested
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:15
|
|
|
you're having a real difficult time with the whole notion that verbally abusing people is not okay and should lead to consequences whether done in the private or public sectors
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:20
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:It says that there will be no law prohibiting somebody from having free speech, freedom to assemble, freedom to worship and the freedom of press. It's kind of backwards to interpret this as so limited as to not apply to non-government entities when these are considered human rights and integral to what makes America "great". Right, "no law", private entities do not pass laws, and firing an employee for their religion is not the same thing as passing a law. The first amendment simply doesn't address firing/hiring at private companies, that's not the same thing as passing laws. I agree with you that people should have a lot of individual liberty, but saying that businesses have the same restrictions as government when it comes to free speech is going to be tricky. Here is a hypothetical question: say you run a business and an employee starts publicly trashing the business, making up poo poo about how the business is run, generally loudly trying to make the business look bad, do you think you should not be allowed to fire that person? do you think their speech should be totally free of any consequence from their employers? what about an employee who comes in and verbally abuses the other employees? should you not be allowed to fire someone for doing so? Earwicker fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Sep 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Lichy posted:you're having a real difficult time with the whole notion that verbally abusing people is not okay and should lead to consequences whether done in the private or public sectors Verbal abuse metrics put it in the same range for personal damage as physical and emotional abuse. Violence, in general, is wrong. It's lucky we have a fairly robust court system in the Western World and Scandinavian countries that have mitigation programs from this sort of thing as abusers tend to create more abuse addicts.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:yes, I know. what they are "getting around" is anti-discrimination laws. It's illegal to fire someone for their race or religion so when they want to fire for those reasons they can give no reason. corporations dont fire people because of their race or religion, they don't give a gently caress about you or who you are they care about money why would you hire a guy you don't want in the first place? i mean if i hate people with nose rings and ear plugs its just way easier to not hire anybody with nose rings and ear plugs. truth is there's a lot of bullshit in the world and not all of it is systemic racism
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:22
|
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:corporations dont fire people because of their race or religion, they don't give a gently caress about you or who you are they care about money Most issues are systemic of something, didn't u ever listen to the based god?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Lichy posted:you're having a real difficult time with the whole notion that verbally abusing people is not okay and should lead to consequences whether done in the private or public sectors no you see my insult was free expression and a political statement
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:23
|
|
|
Lichy posted:you're having a real difficult time with the whole notion that verbally abusing people is not okay and should lead to consequences whether done in the private or public sectors no, you're just arguing with a sarcastic person who is, in fact, arguing the exact same thing that you are. its been kind of funny actually.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
im gaye posted:ok fine i dont want be that guy but holy poo poo if you think this weird nebulous first amendment thing makes any sense when you deconstruct it for five minutes You keep insinuating that you're the smart one here, but you used 'deconstruct' in the wrong context. It's okay though, lots of people who think they're smart do that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
opus111 posted:You keep insinuating that you're the smart one here, but you used 'deconstruct' in the wrong context. It's okay though, lots of people who think they're smart do that. i mean the literal meaning like the literal "take apart" meaning
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:36
|
|
|
What the gently caress are you people even arguing about?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Tricky D posted:What the gently caress are you people even arguing about? semantics and whether or not target can have slaves
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
lol at all you autists
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:50
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:Right, "no law", private entities do not pass laws, and firing an employee for their religion is not the same thing as passing a law. The first amendment simply doesn't address firing/hiring at private companies, that's not the same thing as passing laws. True, but is it really that big a stretch for somebody to expect to be able to express their opinions without worrying about a bunch of outraged people on Twitter calling their boss and demanding their head? Sure, I see no issue in a job requiring an employee to behave a certain way while serving in their position, but you don't work for Walmart 24/7; at some point a company should not expect to be able to control an employee's behavior off the clock. It's why, with certain exceptions for certain jobs, like operating heavy machinery, drug and alcohol tests are also absolutely violation's of one's privacy and freedoms, to the detriment of the individual and the benefit of the company. There's always room for nuance, but at the end of the day, a nation of freedom and liberty should be expected to practice that ideology at all levels of society, and certainly twitter mobs and doxxing should be seen for what they are: criminal levels of harassment.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Hogge Wild posted:lol at all you autists 
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:00
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Here's a tip for all you white males: every time i need to wrote from the perspective of a woman of color, i simply adopt a persona of a woman of color, and nobody ever calls me on it. Wait, how do you do this? You mean on tumblr or something?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:09
|
|
|
i think we should fine people on twitter who violate free speech with their tweets by tweeting
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:True, but is it really that big a stretch for somebody to expect to be able to express their opinions without worrying about a bunch of outraged people on Twitter calling their boss and demanding their head? It's not a huge stretch, but again it's a gray area. As I said, I think Twitter mobs are stupid. However, if you have an employee who makes public remarks in a way that reflects badly on your company to the extent that it's damaging your business , do you think you should have no recourse? Let's say you have a director of marketing who one day snaps and goes on twitter and starts publicly talking about about how "the jews did 9/11" every day, and while doing so they publicly identify themselves as a director at your company, leading to some serious bad pr. Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to fire that person?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
Is a colorblind person allowed to be racist? That's a free pass right?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:It's not a huge stretch, but again it's a gray area. As I said, I think Twitter mobs are stupid. However, if you have an employee who makes public remarks in a way that reflects badly on your company to the extent that it's damaging your business , do you think you should have no recourse? Let's say you have a director of marketing who one day snaps and goes on twitter and starts publicly talking about about how "the jews did 9/11" every day, and while doing so they publicly identify themselves as a director at your company, leading to some serious bad pr. Are you saying that you shouldn't be allowed to fire that person? No, I'm not, and sure, there's certainly a case to be made, although the phrase "damaging your business" is another one of those kind of grey areas. Would Justine Sacco's tweet have really damaged her business? We'll never know, she lost her job in the same day. I'm much more concerned with this actual cultural attitude that seems to view freedom of speech as an inconvenience. I'm bothered by the people who DO get recreationally outraged, who do harass and attack people for voicing their opinions, who do go on to say that the first amendment "only" applies to government. These are incredibly dangerous attitudes. One's freedoms, once taken, are not so easily won back, and as far as I'm concerned, private industry and government are in bed together with such frequency that both ought to be held accountable to the same standards of human rights.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:I'm much more concerned with this actual cultural attitude that seems to view freedom of speech as an inconvenience. I'm bothered by the people who DO get recreationally outraged, who do harass and attack people for voicing their opinions, who do go on to say that the first amendment "only" applies to government. I think it's very dishonest to group all those people together. there are lots of people who think the first amendment applies only to government (because it literally says so in the amendment) who also think that harassment, twitter mobs, doxxing, etc. are wrong. The fact that the first amendment doesn't cover them doesn't make them less wrong.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
EngineerSean posted:Here's a tip for all you white males: every time i need to wrote from the perspective of a woman of color, i simply adopt a persona of a woman of color, and nobody ever calls me on it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pBz0BTb83H8
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Bert Roberge posted:Is a colorblind person allowed to be racist? Find out tonight on MICROAGGRESSION TV.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
I'm always fascinated by how the quality of a thread deteriorates in lock-step with the number of people arguing in it. I'm convinced the worst thread on SA must be two posters arguing the same point back and forth for an infinite amount of pages.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
8-Bit Scholar posted:No, I'm not, and sure, there's certainly a case to be made, although the phrase "damaging your business" is another one of those kind of grey areas. Would Justine Sacco's tweet have really damaged her business? We'll never know, she lost her job in the same day. the reason the first amendment "only" applies to government bodies is because it isnt practical, functional, or enforceable on any other level as evidenced by both the real world implication of opposing "rights of expression" and your failure to provide any solutions beyond your own outrage and discomfort
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
i think twitter is a stupid poo poo website designed specifically for narcissists to compete for attention, and it shouldn't be at the core of any discussions about why we need to limit free speech
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
A friend of mine told me how she was seeing the same guy constantly trolling local news articles comment sections on facebook and would post insanely misogynistic and arguably violent mra-level rants on any article even tangentially related to rape victims or feminism. Apparently this went on for months until said friend looked at this idiot's public profile and emailed screenshots of his posts to the employer listed on the profile. He was subsequently fired because of course that company didn't want people seeing their company's name when they clicked on this dude's public profile after reading an insane mra rant about how the 15 year old raped by her teacher was probably just dressed and acting like a slut I still weep for his trampled free speech rights
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Naerasa posted:I'm always fascinated by how the quality of a thread deteriorates in lock-step with the number of people arguing in it. I'm convinced the worst thread on SA must be two posters arguing the same point back and forth for an infinite amount of pages. Hah, the only other places you see this happen are in very obvious choreographed copy marketing.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Earwicker posted:I think it's very dishonest to group all those people together. there are lots of people who think the first amendment applies only to government (because it literally says so in the amendment) who also think that harassment, twitter mobs, doxxing, etc. are wrong. The fact that the first amendment doesn't cover them doesn't make them less wrong. Well, the Libertarians and Gary Johnson agree with you, so you're in good company. But there are people who seem to only think the first amendment applies only to rhetoric they agree with, and there are those who think "social consequences" empowers them to be entitled little dipshits who attack, harass and generally mistreat those who do not practice correct speech. Political correctness should not apply to non-public figures. Also, you forget the tenth amendment: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." Which is meant to be a catch-all so as to say that even if a right is not specifically named, it is assumed to belong to everyone unless otherwise stated. I view this as an absolute reason to extend the protections of all previous Amendments to everyone. Again, you are shooting yourself in the foot with this insistence that only government is to be held to the standards of the Bill of Rights. This doesn't make sense in ANY other context besides the first amendment. Decorum is one thing, but somebody who says that homosexuality is an abomination may not be a person you or I agree with, but that person should not have their job taken from them unless they are actively harassing gay people at their work. See, that's the distinction, at least in my mind. Power must be checked, and it is the great failure of America that our industry has overtaken our government in both tyrannical attitudes and actual, real power.
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:31
|
|
|
Boner Zone posted:A friend of mine told me how she was seeing the same guy constantly trolling local news articles comment sections on facebook and would post insanely misogynistic and arguably violent mra-level rants on any article even tangentially related to rape victims or feminism. Apparently this went on for months until said friend looked at this idiot's public profile and emailed screenshots of his posts to the employer listed on the profile. He was subsequently fired because of course that company didn't want people seeing their company's name when they clicked on this dude's public profile after reading an insane mra rant about how the 15 year old raped by her teacher was probably just dressed and acting like a slut good for you and your snitch friend i guess what goes around comes around, and maybe one day your friends boss will fire him because nobody really likes holier-than-thou snitches on their staff e: i know a guy who got fired from his job because someone shared a private facebook picture of him drinking beer at a picnic, such imagery is against company policy. hooray for the new world
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
im gaye posted:the reason the first amendment "only" applies to government bodies is because it isnt practical, functional, or enforceable on any other level as evidenced by both the real world implication of opposing "rights of expression" and your failure to provide any solutions beyond your own outrage and discomfort Yes it is. You have a freedom to any speech that is not designated obscene (pornography) or that would incite riot or panic (shouting "fire!" in the movie theater). Slandering others, I believe, also can carry consequence, not that it's ever enforced. Otherwise, you are free and permitted to express any opinion you want. gently caress the Pope! See? I can say that. Some people would want me to be punished for that, but they are not empowered to punish me. YOU are not empowered to punish people whom you disagree with. You may discuss, you may argue, you may ignore, but you don't have a right to enforce your opinion on them, nor silence theirs. And if you can't do it, why the gently caress should we tolerate anybody else doing it?
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 05:40 |
|
|
reallivedinosaur posted:i think twitter is a stupid poo poo website designed specifically for narcissists to compete for attention, and it shouldn't be at the core of any discussions about why we need to limit free speech
|
|
#
?
Sep 11, 2016 19:36
|
|