General Current Events/Political Discussion

[Tulpa | 3,583]

1 hour ago, cartman said:

Big conglomerates don't have any particular values they pander to whatever cause that makes them look good and earns money. They'll do bad with faux-good intentions like the case i mentioned or they'll do outright bad like utilizing child/slave en labor etc. They ain't losing sleep over Floyd or anyone else better believe it.

 

I wouldn't be quick to paint all corporations with that broad brush, but in the United States, they are allowed to have a viewpoint, and are allowed to fire employees that express a controversial statement that hurts their bottom line.

Again, as long as it's not a protected category (or a lifestyle law is in play), and as long as an employment contract or collective bargaining agreement doesn't say otherwise, a company can fire you for 1) having a controversial viewpoint 2) not wearing a shirt they want you to wear 3) because they don't like your face.

 

1 hour ago, cartman said:

Yes they can fire him over this but is it righteous thing to do so that is the question. Talking about values in a case where someone is fired for not completely submitting himself to BLM is a weak argument when it's a blatant move at silencing any differing political discourse no matter how it was said. The fact that he was responding to a question and not the other way around makes it all the more grimey.

They didn't silence him. He's still free to make any statement. He just can't work for them anymore. He doesn't have the right to work for them if they don't want him.

They also didn't ask him to completely submit to BLM, but stating "all lives matter" is a direct opposition to the BLM values, and if his company supports BLM, then they have the right to act against an employee who expresses direct opposition.

If he stated he supports a competitor while in their employ, he has every right to do so, and he'd also be out on his ass.

 

He is free to go work for another company that welcomes "all lives matter", or one that doesn't care. His rights are not being infringed.

 

1 hour ago, cartman said:

Kaepernick was stunting his politicial opinion in a situation where he wasn't even being asked and one could say that he was more of a representative for a "uniform" vs. free agent than this commentator. Would you support Kaepernick getting sacked on sheer principle for opinionating what the company finds onappropriate by the same logic? But the same rules don't apply to him by societies standards because he conforms to the popular notion. 

Kaepernick DID get fired for his viewpoints. Then the NFL made a conscious business decision to support his views.

Yes, popular opinion did play a part, but guess what? Companies are free to do that. They can absolutely decide one way or another, and customers of that company can decide to patronize it or not.

That's how it works in the free market.

Companies decide all the time to support popular opinions. They're free to do so and they're free to ignore it, and customers can decide for themselves. That's exactly what has happened.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tulpa

[Strange | 1,706]

Just now, Estil said:

That is an opinion just like what I've and the others here said are opinions.

“Black lives matter” is not a debatable opinion. The idea that opinions can’t be wrong is an opinion and it’s wrong.

[cartman | 195]

52 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

I disagree. There is no discussion if only one side gets a voice.

 

First off, BLM is not an organization with an agenda. It is a standard, a slogan, an ideal. And those who choose not to acknowledge that black lives matter are being wilfully ignorant and stubborn, not evil.

 

Ofcourse it has an agenda. They're only interested in so far that it serves the narrative that racism has taken place against a black man, otherwise they won't give a fuck. Like the muder rates in their own communities done by themselves towards each other. If it says lives matter then it would be reasonable that the focus was black people dying and not whether some white perpetrator can be fished out in a particular case.

Yes BLM are ignorant and stubborn.

[Estil | 1,282]

Just now, The Strangest said:

“Black lives matter” is not a debatable opinion.

Yes it is, there is much, much about the issue that is completely fair game for debate and disagreement.  For example exactly what kind of police reforms should be done and in what way?

[Kguillemette | 1,570]

1 minute ago, Estil said:

That is an opinion just like what I've and the others here said are opinions.

I am disappointed to read that you feel it is meerly an opinion that black lives matter. I encourage you to reword this statement.

Remember. The purpose of Black Lives Matter is not that black lives matter more so than others. Just that they indeed matter.

[Estil | 1,282]

1 minute ago, Kguillemette said:

I am disappointed to read that you feel it is meerly an opinion that black lives matter.

I mean more the specific parts of the BLM.

[Strange | 1,706]

1 minute ago, Estil said:

Yes it is, there is much, much about the issue that is completely fair game for debate and disagreement.  For example exactly what kind of police reforms should be done and in what way?

Where in the phrase “black lives matter” do you see anything about police reform? It’s only three words.

”black”

”lives”

and

”matter”

The message is that blacks peoples’ lives matter. Believing that black lives matter means you agree that black people have a right to be alive. It means you believe they are not expendable, they are not below anyone else for any reason.

It’s three words, one phrase, one meaning.

Black lives matter.

[Kguillemette | 1,570]

10 minutes ago, cartman said:

Ofcourse it has an agenda. They're only interested in so far that it serves the narrative that racism has taken place against a black man, otherwise they won't give a fuck. Like the muder rates in their own communities done by themselves towards each other. If it says lives matter then it would be reasonable that the focus was black people dying and not whether some white perpetrator can be fished out in a particular case.

Yes BLM are ignorant and stubborn.

You are setting up a straw man argument by implying in an organization that does not exist and challenging me to defend it. This is a logical fallacy.

Blm is not an organization with an agenda. It is an ideal. A Statement of fact. A slogan.

Edited June 20, 2020 by Kguillemette
Clarity

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Tulpa said:

I wouldn't be quick to paint all corporations with that broad brush, but in the United States, they are allowed to have a viewpoint, and are allowed to fire employees that express a controversial statement that hurts their bottom line.

 

They didn't silence him. He's still free to make any statement. He just can't work for them anymore. He doesn't have the right to work for them if they don't want him.

They also didn't ask him to completely submit to BLM, but stating "all lives matter" is a direct opposition to the BLM values, and if his company supports BLM, then they have the right to act against an employee who expresses direct opposition.

If he stated he supports a competitor while in their employ, he has every right to do so, and he'd also be out on his ass.

 

Kaepernick DID get fired for his viewpoints. Then the NFL made a conscious business decision to support his views.

Yes, popular opinion did play a part, but guess what? Companies are free to do that. They can absolutely decide, and customers of that company can decide to patronize it or not.

That's how it works in the free market.

Companies decide all the time to support popular opinions. They're free to do so and they're free to ignore it, and customers can decide for themselves. That's exactly what has happened.

Right. He became a hero and had a multi-billion-high-status company jump in to save his rich ass while a perhaps not exactly working class man, but compared to Kaepernick still way less off, got dishonorably discharged. After answering a question HE was asked.

He most definitely did have to submit to BLM pretty much whole-heartedly. You can nitpick the details but he had to submit to a leftist movements narrative or get fired and that's the bottom line here. 

 

[cartman | 195]

12 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

I am disappg ointed to read that you feel it is meerly an opinion that black lives matter. I encourage you to reword this statement.

Remember. The purpose of Black Lives Matter is not that black lives matter more so than others. Just that they indeed matter.

See now you're playing foul again. You're stringing him along the leftist ideology and their interpretation of racism and pitting it against not caring about blacks otherwise. BLM does not have the authority to define what caring about blacks entails and neither do you.

Edited June 20, 2020 by cartman

[Tulpa | 3,583]

7 minutes ago, cartman said:

Right. He became a hero and had a multi-billion-high-status company jump in to save his rich ass while a perhaps not exactly working class man, but compared to Kaepernick still way less off, got dishonorably discharged. After answering a question HE was asked.

He most definitely did have to submit to BLM pretty much whole-heartedly. You can nitpick the details but he had to submit to a leftist movements narrative or get fired and that's the bottom line here.

No, he could have declined to answer, or state that he's on the job and can't answer that in public, or any number of responses.

When you're employed, you're representing your company. You don't like your company's stance? You want to spout off whatever you want?

Quit.

Go find a new job that will let you.

Start your own company.

Freedom of speech means the government won't come in and shut down your voice. It does not mean that companies have to keep your ass employed indefinitely and allow you to say what you want.

He can still say "all lives matter," he just won't be working for the company that disagrees with him.

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tulpa

[Kguillemette | 1,570]

1 minute ago, cartman said:

Right. He became a hero and had a multi-billion-high-status company jump in to save his rich ass while a perhaps not exactly working class man, but compared to Kaepernick still way less off, got dishonorably discharged. After answering a question HE was asked.

He most definitely did have to submit to BLM pretty much whole-heartedly. You can nitpick the details but he had to submit to a leftist movements narrative or get fired and that's the bottom line here. 

 

From what I understand, the broadcaster of the Kings wasn't even given an opportunity. And this is where I strongly disagree with the whole cancel culture we live in. We can't even have one (largely) unpopular statement. Did anyone learn anything from the whole ordeal?

[Kguillemette | 1,570]

3 minutes ago, cartman said:

See now you're playing foul again. You're stringing him along the leftist ideology and their interpretation of racism and pitting it against not caring about blacks otherwise. BLM does not have the authority to define what caring about blacks entails and neither do you.

Once again you are setting up a straw man. It seems your issue is more with Hollywood media cancel culture, which I think hurts BLM more than anything.

All black lives matter "cares" about is that they matter. The definition is in the title.

[cartman | 195]

2 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

No, he could have declined to answer, or state that he's on the job and can't answer that in public, or any number of responses.

When you're employed, you're representing your company. You don't like your company's stance? You want to spout off whatever you want?

Quit.

Go find a new job that will let you.

Start your own company.

Freedom of speech means the government won't come in and shut down your voice. It does not mean that companies have to keep your ass employed indefinitely and allow you to say what you want.

 

So he could've silenced himself instead of getting silenced basically.

Yes i get you point. But if we're talking principles then that should go for everyone and not just those who pay lipservice to the politically correct opinions.

[cartman | 195]

1 minute ago, Kguillemette said:

Once again you are setting up a straw man. It seems your issue is more with Hollywood media cancel culture, which I think hurts BLM more than anything.

All black lives matter "cares" about is that they matter. The definition is in the title.

No the title is the least important it's how it is being implemented that matters. 

[Tulpa | 3,583]

9 minutes ago, cartman said:

So he could've silenced himself instead of getting silenced basically.

If he wants to keep his job, yes. He doesn't have the right to that particular job. He has to look at what his company stands for and either agree to abide by it or go find another job.

Again, he's not getting jailed, or executed, or censored by the government.

He lost his job.

Yes, it's his livelihood, but that's how it goes. If he walked in with a shirt that says "My boss sucks," or any other heated statement he'd probably have similar repercussions to face.

9 minutes ago, cartman said:

Yes i get you point. But if we're talking principles then that should go for everyone and not just those who pay lipservice to the politically correct opinions.

Well, the principle is that the people who run their companies also have rights, and they have the right to have employees who don't make statements that go against what a company stands for. If it goes for EVERYONE, that includes the employers.

If you work for a company that adheres to a politically correct opinion and you disagree with that opinion, your choices are 1) keep quiet 2) find work elsewhere 3) state the opposing opinion and face the consequences of doing so.

Forcing employers to not fire workers who make statements that they (the employers) don't agree with is not a free society.

You might not like companies that adhere to politically correct opinions. And guess what? No one is forcing you to patronize them. Vote with your feet and wallet.

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tulpa

[Kguillemette | 1,570]

2 minutes ago, cartman said:

No the title is the least important it's how it is being implemented that matters. 

 

 

4 minutes ago, cartman said:

 

You continue to imply that BLM is an organization making effort to implement an a agenda. This is the same straw man argument. 

Black Lives Matter is a statement of fact. Roses are red. Violets are blue. Black Lives Matter. Your life matters too.

[cartman | 195]

3 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

If he wants to keep his job, yes. He doesn't have the right to that particular job. He has to look at what his company stands for and either agree to abide by it or go find another job.

Again, he's not getting jailed, or executed, or censored by the government.

He lost his job.

Yes, it's his livelihood, but that's how it goes. If he walked in with a shirt that says "My boss sucks," or any other heated statement he'd probably have similar repercussions to face.

Well, the principle is that the people who run their companies also have rights, and they have the right to have employees who don't make statements that go against what a company stands for. If it goes for EVERYONE, that includes the employers.

If you work for a company that adheres to a politically correct opinion and you disagree with that opinion, your choices are 1) keep quiet 2) find work elsewhere 3) state the opposing opinion and face the consequences of doing so.

Allowing employers to not fire workers who make statements that they don't agree with is not a free society.

 

Still, i think it's a pretty shitty social climate/society where you can't have an opinion about caring about generally you must explicitly pledge that you not only care about blacks but also a specific ideologies definition of what caring about blacks means. 

I think it's pretty obvious that this is morally corrupt but if you're making a strictly free market argument then ofcourse i can't refute what is an opinion. 

[cartman | 195]

6 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

 

 

You continue to imply that BLM is an organization making effort to implement an a agenda. This is the same straw man argument. 

Black Lives Matter is a statement of fact. Roses are red. Violets are blue. Black Lives Matter. Your life matters too.

The agenda is to push a racism narrative. Evident in not caring about black deaths in the absence of it wich we see in BLM not focusing on black-on-black murders.

[Psychobear85 | 141]

5 minutes ago, Kguillemette said:

 

 

You continue to imply that BLM is an organization making effort to implement an a agenda. This is the same straw man argument. 

Black Lives Matter is a statement of fact. Roses are red. Violets are blue. Black Lives Matter. Your life matters too.

Being first generation American from Mexican born parents and I say Brown Lives Matter, does it make me a racist? 

I just want to hear your opinion on this 

We suffer the same if not more discrimination, nearly the same poverty levels, we have a lower percentage of bachelor degrees, I don’t want to to talk about how police treat us but I’ll leave you with this, my dad got pulled out of the car tossed on the ground for not having his resident card on him so they automatically thought he was illegal.  Even worse liberals are ignorant towards us “did they have this back on your country” at least with a racist I know what I’m getting. Even till this day I get discriminated against simply for the color of my skin, so if I don’t say BLM and say Brown Lives Matter what does that make me? 

[Tulpa | 3,583]

21 minutes ago, cartman said:

Still, i think it's a pretty shitty social climate/society where you can't have an opinion about caring about generally you must explicitly pledge that you not only care about blacks but also a specific ideologies definition of what caring about blacks means.

You can have the opposite opinion, just that a significant segment of society may disagree with you and may not want to employ you/work with you/buy things from you. That is their right. They're not forced to buy things or solicit services if they disagree with you. They can even speak out against you.

You have to make the determination whether all that hurts your livelihood.

If it doesn't, keep on keeping on.

If it does, well, you may have to keep your trap shut. Or again, find a different way to make a living while spouting off your views.

I mean, that can be true of any number of things.

 

21 minutes ago, cartman said:

I think it's pretty obvious that this is morally corrupt but if you're making a strictly free market argument then ofcourse i can't refute what is an opinion. 

I just think it would be worse to have employers not be able to not employ people who have viewpoints they disagree with.

Because then we're picking and choosing who gets to be free.

Again, no one is silencing his viewpoint, they just don't want to employ him.

And that is their right.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2020 by Tulpa

[Link | 2,821]

2 hours ago, Estil said:

 

2 hours ago, drxandy said:

Tone deaf attitude deserves firing.

No sir, we as American citizens have every right to debate and disagree with any organization/movement.  

What in the world makes you think the right to disagree, which is valid, makes you think someone’s disagreement should control other peoples’ right to disagree? 

[cartman | 195]

7 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

You can have the opposite opinion, just that a significant segment of society may disagree with you and may not want to employ you/work with you/buy things from you. That is their right. They're not forced to buy things or solicit services from people that disagree with you. They can even speak out against you.

You have to make the determination whether all that hurts your livelihood.

If it doesn't, keep on keeping on.

If it does, well, you may have to keep your trap shut. Or again, find a different way to make a living while spouting off your views.

I mean, that can be true of any number of things.

 

I just think it would be worse to have employers not be able to not employ people who have viewpoints they disagree with.

Because then we're picking and choosing who gets to be free.

Again, no one is silencing his viewpoint, they just don't want to employ him.

And that is their right.

 

 

It doesn't mean that it isn't a social regression though that people should be listened to and get to deplatform others as soon as their feelings get hurt. If these antics were discouraged and viewed as shameful to begin with this bullshit wouldn't been happening but now when the snowball is rolling people get emboldened to denounce everything. 

[Tulpa | 3,583]

8 minutes ago, cartman said:

It doesn't mean that it isn't a social regression though that people should be listened to and get to deplatform others as soon as their feelings get hurt. If these antics were discouraged and viewed as shameful to begin with this bullshit wouldn't been happening but now when the snowball is rolling people get emboldened to denounce everything. 

When you say "discouraged and viewed as shameful", you're basically saying you want to deplatform those you disagree with. You want to do the very thing you're accusing them of doing.

 

[Strange | 1,706]

17 minutes ago, Psychobear85 said:

Being first generation American from Mexican born parents and I say Brown Lives Matter, does it make me a racist? 

I just want to hear your opinion on this 

We suffer the same if not more discrimination, nearly the same poverty levels, we have a lower percentage of bachelor degrees, I don’t want to to talk about how police treat us but I’ll leave you with this, my dad got pulled out of the car tossed on the ground for not having his resident card on him so they automatically thought he was illegal.  Even worse liberals are ignorant towards us “did they have this back on your country” at least with a racist I know what I’m getting. Even till this day I get discriminated against simply for the color of my skin, so if I don’t say BLM and say Brown Lives Matter what does that make me? 

“Black lives matter” means one thing. It’s in the phrase. It means black peoples’ lives matter. It doesn’t mean white lives or brown lives don’t matter. Saying black lives matter doesn’t exclude anyone else. It’s just stating a fact.