Religion The Fucking Left

[Wij]

The Dems are punished by a Supreme Court stuffed with Republican judges; i wouldn't be getting too worried about their freedoms.

As for "punished for saying he agrees with a court decision"; come off it, the content of said court decision is what's at issue here. This is a deeply unpleasant, regressive decision, enacted at the behest of religious fundamentalists, so fuck 'em, frankly. I'm not going to shed tears for them

To a great many women in the US he was effectively saying fuck you. You shouldn't control your own bodies. That's going to hurt their bottom line whether @Scouse likes it or not.

 

[SilverHood]

The Dems kinda brought this on their own. The Republican judges step down when they get old and they know they will be replaced with another GOP judge. The Dem judges hang on until they die, and if it happens to be during a republican presidency, then they get replaced with a GOP judge. They know this, and they still don't step down.

 

[Scouse]

The Dems are punished by a Supreme Court stuffed with Republican judges; i wouldn't be getting too worried about their freedoms.

As for "punished for saying he agrees with a court decision"; come off it, the content of said court decision is what's at issue here. This is a deeply unpleasant, regressive decision, enacted at the behest of religious fundamentalists, so fuck 'em, frankly. I'm not going to shed tears for them

Again, I don't disagree with you one jot in this case. Not a single jot. But it's the higher principle that's important IMO.

You know, the "I detest what you say....." and "first they came for the communists...and there was no-one left to speak for me" yadda yadda yaddas...


I don't really give a monkeys about Dem's or Republicans as political entities. The subject matter is Joe Blogs and his unpopular opinions. This is what we're talking about. He must be protected in a way that allows him to express those unpopular, idiotic, despicable, religiously-inspired opinions.

Because sometimes the unpopular opinions, the heretical opinions, are the correct opinions - so we need to find a functional way to provide oxygen to them.

 

[Scouse]

To a great many women in the US he was effectively saying fuck you. You shouldn't control your own bodies. That's going to hurt their bottom line whether @Scouse likes it or not.

He's a guy who feels a way. He may well be wrong (and I think he is) - but he should be able to be allowed express his support for that wrong without losing his job.

That's a fundamental requirement of a functioning democracy. The ability of people to get it wrong.

 

[Wij]

He's a guy who feels a way. He may well be wrong (and I think he is) - but he should be able to be allowed express his support for that wrong without losing his job.

That's a fundamental requirement of a functioning democracy. The ability of people to get it wrong.

No one is stopping him getting it wrong but his company is allowed to protect its commercial interests.

 

[Scouse]

No one is stopping him getting it wrong but his company is allowed to protect its commercial interests.

Argument is becoming circular @Wij old bean.

Whilst what you say is absolutely true I'd already pointed out the real problems caused by this and suggested possible solutions in my first post on the subject.

 

[Gwadien]

Argument is becoming circular @Wij old bean.

Whilst what you say is absolutely true I'd already pointed out the real problems caused by this and suggested possible solutions in my first post on the subject.

Are you framing this as a 'left' problem though? Because I'm fairly sure it's not, I'm fairly sure there's been lots of big people sacked in the past for sleeping with the help or something pretty minor.

 

[Scouse]

Are you framing this as a 'left' problem though? Because I'm fairly sure it's not, I'm fairly sure there's been lots of big people sacked in the past for sleeping with the help or something pretty minor.

Not being glib:
The thing is though @Embattle - how many people who've publicly tweeted their disgust with the supreme court ruling have lost their jobs?


Shipwright Studios indeed haev a point (which is why I think it's pure idiocy being on social media at all) - but how many organisations have cancelled contracts because people have tweeted stuff that agree with the court ruling?

The fact of the matter is, the very vocal left (who are welcome to their opinions) have created an atmosphere that deems what is "acceptable" political opinion and companies, who's priority is the bottom line, are running scared of being in that thought-crime firing-line (because it could affect their bottom line).

Therefore average joe has unbeliveably harsh consequences for publicly stating a simple viewpoint that they're perfectly legally able to hold (and is clearly widely held).

Because of this we're in a position where thought crime is very real. If you're not following the accepted narrative, which is largely controlled by the left, you're not really allowed to participate in free public discourse.

Ultimately, this is because companies and corporations don't value freedom of debate over reputational damage. Perhaps there needs to be laws enacted to protect the right of private citizens to hold public debate, to exercise their right to freedom of speech, without fear of losing their jobs - removing companies ability to remove people from their posts simply because of the opinions they hold.

It's not simple. And, frankly, I think the guy is really badly mistaken. But I could tweet support for abortion and not lose my job. I couldn't tweet support for a supreme court ruling* and not expect that consequence, however - because my company would be scared of reputational damage - because of the left.



*I can't tweet when I'm taking a holiday tbh. It's expressly forbidden as there's potential use-cases which put our systems at risk, believe it or not. But then, I could see all of this shit happening - the vocal left grabbing the narrative and using it to force an "acceptable culture" on us all the minute social media became a thing, so I've stayed well clear of all of those platforms.

Praise be lord @Deebs for for having the forsight in specifically setting up FH in a way that's about as "privately public" as can legally be

 

[Gwadien]

It's a pretty straight forward question, I'm not going to try and work out the answer from that wall of text for you to throw it back at me and call me dumb or something.

 

[Scouse]

It's a pretty straight forward question, I'm not going to try and work out the answer from that wall of text for you to throw it back at me and call me dumb or something.

Dude. Really? I framed it as a primarily left problem in my very first post and explained my thinking very clearly.

It's not a "wall of text" - I just timed it, it took less than a minute to read. If you're on a discussion forum and the points have already been made, maybe make a cursory attempt to follow them?

 

[Gwadien]

Okay then.

In my opinion then, this is something that has been around a long time before the new nasty left came about.

I think all you're doing by applying 'left' to all these issues is you're giving strength to the right and giving justification for all the boomers that say 'the problem with today is' when it's 'not a problem with today'.

 

[Scouse]

I think all you're doing by applying 'left' to all these issues is you're giving strength to the right

Pointing out shit that the left does does not mean giving strenght to the right. It means that the left is doing bad shit - and they need to stop doing that.

It's not a commentary on the right and the bad shit that they do. Pointing out bad shit is pointing out bad shit.

If Labour could grasp this then they'd cut out that shit from their behaviour in government and maybe, just maybe, they'd be electable.

 

[Gwadien]

Pointing out shit that the left does does not mean giving strenght to the right. It means that the left is doing bad shit - and they need to stop doing that.

It's not a commentary on the right and the bad shit that they do. Pointing out bad shit is pointing out bad shit.

If Labour could grasp this then they'd cut out that shit from their behaviour in government and maybe, just maybe, they'd be electable.

Buh? Labour aren't new new labour, they're new labour, they're Blair labour. They don't really care about the people that are into all this cancel culture and stuff, if you're going to accuse them of that you need to put the Tories in the same boat too, because they're just as bad as each other.

You're also missing my point, in my opinion you're attributing things to the Left which aren't the Left's fault, which absolutely gives credence to people with hard-right views whom dismiss anything else as 'leftie snowflakes'.

Let's be honest though, if Job was here, this thread would be sticky with his man juice, and you know it.

 

[Scouse]

You're also missing my point, in my opinion you're attributing things to the Left which aren't the Left's fault

Like a guy losing his job for simply tweeting his agreement with a court decision.


Yeah. That's got the right's paw prints all over it

 

[DaGaffer]

Like a guy losing his job for simply tweeting his agreement with a court decision.


Yeah. That's got the right's paw prints all over it

No, he lost his job for losing his company money. There's nothing in the Constitution that says your free speech won't get you a punch in the mouth (literal or figurative), just that the government won't stop you saying it.

Being a gobshite on company time can have consequences.

 

[Scouse]

No, he lost his job for losing his company money. There's nothing in the Constitution that says your free speech won't get you a punch in the mouth (literal or figurative), just that the government won't stop you saying it.

Being a gobshite on company time can have consequences.

Already addressed this in my first post.

If tweeting support for a court decision gets you sacked then in no way is your speech really free - and something needs to be done to prevent companies from being legally able to act in this manner.

The world has changed. Speech absolutely happens online. Today it is the primary social medium. Free speech laws need to be updated to protect free speech from the chilling effects of corporate cowardice.

 

[Gwadien]

Already addressed this in my first post.

If tweeting support for a court decision gets you sacked then in no way is your speech really free - and something needs to be done to prevent companies from being legally able to act in this manner.

The world has changed. Speech absolutely happens online. Today it is the primary social medium. Free speech laws need to be updated to protect free speech from the chilling effects of corporate cowardice.

But it's NOT A LEFT THING.

As I said before, top dogs in business/public life have been sacked/resigned (this guy resigned right, not sacked?) for as long as it's been a thing for a range of reasons.

Ultimately, it's about the bottom line, so yeah, capitalism, not politics.

 

[DaGaffer]

Already addressed this in my first post.

If tweeting support for a court decision gets you sacked then in no way is your speech really free - and something needs to be done to prevent companies from being legally able to act in this manner.

The world has changed. Speech absolutely happens online. Today it is the primary social medium. Free speech laws need to be updated to protect free speech from the chilling effects of corporate cowardice.

And I responded to that, "support for a court decision" is total bullshit and you know it. The content of the court decision is what matters and people are perfectly at liberty to say "I don't agree with you supporting medieval religious horseshit and I'm going to boycott you and you company". NO-ONE stopped him from saying what he said, and that's the limit of free speech. There have always been consequences of talking shite, now they just arrive faster. Besides, right-wingers in the US try to boycott things they don't like all the time; the problem is they're usually too lazy or thick to put in the necessary research

Right-wingers keep trying to boycott products they hate — and keep failing

Conservatives love to announce boycotts of prominent brands — but somehow they never pan out as planned

www.salon.com

 

[Scouse]

But it's NOT A LEFT THING.

Yes. Yes it is. All of the examples here are down to a "approved morality" - the very concept of which is a left thing.

 

[Scouse]

And I responded to that, "support for a court decision" is total bullshit and you know it.[/URL]

I disagree. I think that's absolutely critical.

It is apparently not so controversial a viewpoint that courts can back it. It's not as if he was tweeting support for racial eugenics. He specifically tweeted support for a court decision.

We may hate that court decision (and I do) - but it's not support for something that's outlawed. It's a support for a law.

The content of the court decision is what matters

No. No it doesn't. The fact that it's an outcome of a legal process in itself should bar people from being able to be functionally forced from their jobs because of this.

It's a subversion of democracy to not allow people to freely hold opinions on democratic processes. If we, functionally, repress the views that are alloweded to be express then we functionally repress an open democratic process.


We have to protect the twats.

 

[Gwadien]

Yes. Yes it is. All of the examples here are down to a "approved morality" - the very concept of which is a left thing.

It's not approved morality at all, it's a bunch of rich people who are concerned they'll be less rich if people start boycotting the company that they have invested money into.

That's ALWAYS been the case; it'd be the same if a top dog at the East India Trading Company said 'Fuck the British Empire!' They'd be sacked/forced to resign for the same reason.

 

[Scouse]

It's not approved morality at all, it's a bunch of rich people who are concerned they'll be less rich if people start boycotting the company that they have invested money into.

Actually, it's a non-rich forum member aghast at the observation of a cultural change that has started to see people lose their jobs over tweeting support for court decisions, people getting locked up for making jokes because "context doesn't matter".

But you can't see it because it aligns with your politics, so you don't care about the fallout

 

[Gwadien]

Actually, it's a non-rich forum member aghast at the observation of a cultural change that has started to see people lose their jobs over tweeting support for court decisions, people getting locked up for making jokes because "context doesn't matter".

But you can't see it because it aligns with your politics, so you don't care about the fallout

Wait, so now you're saying he got fired because of this conversation and the views I've shared?

wow.

talk about cancel culture.

You've literally got the least 'leftie' people on the forum also agreeing with me, yet you still wanna play the 'little leftie' card, fuck off mate.

 

[Scouse]

Wait, so now you're saying he got fired because of this conversation and the views I've shared?

No.

I think there's a comprehension gap.

 

[Gwadien]

No.

I think there's a comprehension gap.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand there we go.

Disagree with me and you're dumb.

'The fucking left'

alright m8.

 

[Ormorof]

Yes. Yes it is. All of the examples here are down to a "approved morality" - the very concept of which is a left thing.

The entire modern right is built on two things;
- faux outrage over things that people they dont like do or say (immigrants, women, etc)
- declaring it "cancel culture" whenever they have to face any consequences for spewing shit


Freedom of speech != Freedom from consequences of said speech

You CAN say what you like, but you have no right to be butthurt if people disagree and vote with their wallets

The problem with "the left" (bizarre term in modern context anyway) is that they do speak out when one of their own does bad/stupid/nasty shit. And often the consequences are felt by the person who did the deed. The right on the other hand only ever point out problems with anyone who doesn't do things to their benefit. This is why the likes of BoJo, Trump, Ted Cruz, and many more slimebags continue to succeed.

Painting this as a problem of thought police lefties is absurd when you consider the "outrage police" is mostly right wing these days

 

[Scouse]

Disagree with me and you're dumb.

I didn't say that either.

Jeesus @Gwadien. I know you like to read into things, but if I want to call you dumb I'll call you dumb.

But there's clearly a comprehension gap when you say shit like this:

Wait, so now you're saying he got fired because of this conversation and the views I've shared?

It boggles the mind how you could say that.

 

[Scouse]

The entire modern right is built on two things;
- faux outrage over things that people they dont like do or say (immigrants, women, etc)
- declaring it "cancel culture" whenever they have to face any consequences for spewing shit


Freedom of speech != Freedom from consequences of said speech

You CAN say what you like, but you have no right to be butthurt if people disagree and vote with their wallets

The problem with "the left" (bizarre term in modern context anyway) is that they do speak out when one of their own does bad/stupid/nasty shit. And often the consequences are felt by the person who did the deed. The right on the other hand only ever point out problems with anyone who doesn't do things to their benefit. This is why the likes of BoJo, Trump, Ted Cruz, and many more slimebags continue to succeed.

Painting this as a problem of thought police lefties is absurd when you consider the "outrage police" is mostly right wing these days

I disagree with a lot of this, but there's some stuff I agree with.

The primary disagreement isn't about "saying what you like". It's more nuanced than that - should you be able to say "I agree with the court" and keep your job?

He's not said "I think women should be trampled on and raped" - he's specifically said "I agree with the court". We might vehemently disagree with his point of view - and I do - but you can't play the there's "no freedom from consequences" card if even the mention of supporting the outcome of a legal process ends up in your censure.

If you can't agree with the courts in public, without losing your job, then there is no freedom of speech. My argument is that free speech - and people - need more codified legal protection because the new paradigm of social media has eroded your liberty to hold many views in public.

 

[Wij]

I disagree. I think that's absolutely critical.

It is apparently not so controversial a viewpoint that courts can back it. It's not as if he was tweeting support for racial eugenics. He specifically tweeted support for a court decision.

We may hate that court decision (and I do) - but it's not support for something that's outlawed. It's a support for a law.



No. No it doesn't. The fact that it's an outcome of a legal process in itself should bar people from being able to be functionally forced from their jobs because of this.

The Holocaust was legal.

/Godwin

 

[Gwadien]

I didn't say that either.

Jeesus @Gwadien. I know you like to read into things, but if I want to call you dumb I'll call you dumb.

But there's clearly a comprehension gap when you say shit like this:


It boggles the mind how you could say that.

Because we were talking about a CEO of a company being sacked or 'resigning' by what I would assume is a board of shareholders.

It's not like he's tweeted it and he's resigned instantly on the back of that, he's clearly a proud Republican, and that's hardly the way they go about things.

You go against public opinion when it comes to business/public life then you expect to deal with the consequences.

That is not new.

Then you decided to start talking about how it's my inability to accept your opinion? buh?

And to make it absolutely crystal clear, I am talking about this one case.

I also gave you a chance to blame it on capitalism you've changed man.