Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to The Lounge |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too right... everything always catches up with you in the end. I reckon they would have fired her sooner if they hadnt filmed season 1 and 2 back to back, and it was far too late to cut her scenes and film new ones In related news, im SO happy to hear Pedro Pascal will be playing Joel in the Last of Us TV show... that guy knows how to play a guy escorting a kid on a long journey ha" Was quite surprised by the tweet my self as it’s definitely not like Gina G to say stuff like that | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ?" I thought that hand’t been announced yet? Whose gonna be your assistant? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ?" Got to agree, who said what to whom about what & why should I care? That sounds more aggressive than I mean...more of a shrug than a challenge...sorry poorly phrased. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ? I thought that hand’t been announced yet? Whose gonna be your assistant? " Doh! That took me 2 reads..... now I think it's VERY funny ...... hook , line n sinker..... it'd have to be you but you have to dress provocatively and move like a shrimp. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ? Got to agree, who said what to whom about what & why should I care? That sounds more aggressive than I mean...more of a shrug than a challenge...sorry poorly phrased." excessively aggressive .......tsk  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ? I thought that hand’t been announced yet? Whose gonna be your assistant? Doh! That took me 2 reads..... now I think it's VERY funny ...... hook , line n sinker..... it'd have to be you but you have to dress provocatively and move like a shrimp." Pink morph suit okay by you? My catchphrase could be “ I’m not a gimp, I’m a shrimp. To the Tardis Granny (I’ll get the ramp) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ?" Different worlds quite literally haha, shes an actress/former MMA fighter whos been fired from a Star Wars TV show for "abhorrent tweets" | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ? Different worlds quite literally haha, shes an actress/former MMA fighter whos been fired from a Star Wars TV show for "abhorrent tweets"" What makes you think I am not all of those ...... apart from the tweets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We live in different worlds....... I don't know of her. But then she would say Granny who ? Different worlds quite literally haha, shes an actress/former MMA fighter whos been fired from a Star Wars TV show for "abhorrent tweets" What makes you think I am not all of those ...... apart from the tweets. " Well if you are i know a job vancancy you'd be perfect for... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. " This! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Too right... everything always catches up with you in the end. I reckon they would have fired her sooner if they hadnt filmed season 1 and 2 back to back, and it was far too late to cut her scenes and film new ones In related news, im SO happy to hear Pedro Pascal will be playing Joel in the Last of Us TV show... that guy knows how to play a guy escorting a kid on a long journey ha" I'm so ready for this! I think he will be great! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Finally! Its taken them long enough!" Because only her most resent tweets were inexcusable and none previously held any ground to be fired. Which is exactly why they didn't, they had no grounds to fire her until now. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised too What exactly did she tweet?" She tweeting a anti-Semitic tweet on Jews and nazi And yes if some off yous are wondering yes I know her I am very well known in the MMA community I know her by a forum name gina G | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised too What exactly did she tweet?" Social media post compared "hating someone for their political views" in the US to the treatment of Jewish people during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised too What exactly did she tweet? Social media post compared "hating someone for their political views" in the US to the treatment of Jewish people during the Holocaust in Nazi Germany." Ah ok. I saw a picture she posted of a Jewish woman being attacked by her neighbours stating that it all began with neighbour turning on neighbour but I haven't seen anything else | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm surprised too What exactly did she tweet? She tweeting a anti-Semitic tweet on Jews and nazi And yes if some off yous are wondering yes I know her I am very well known in the MMA community I know her by a forum name gina G " What she said was nowhere near anti semetic... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequence. " Help help they're so oppressed | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She essentially said dehuminising your neighbour is what lead to holocaust Which is completly true " Was finally able to track down the original tweet (I think) and can't find anything of what is being said she said, being said! I don't agree with the holocaust being used as an example, but the statement itself is, as you say true. Escalation always starts somewhere. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She essentially said dehuminising your neighbour is what lead to holocaust Which is completly true Was finally able to track down the original tweet (I think) and can't find anything of what is being said she said, being said! I don't agree with the holocaust being used as an example, but the statement itself is, as you say true. Escalation always starts somewhere." The example was extreme yes i agree, but doesnt make it untrue The holocaust happened because people allowed themselves to dehumise their neighbour Which is exactly what is happening slowly in America atm on both sides. and is being perpetuated by cancel culture | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"What did she say and should we change to company name since Walt Disney attended Nazi part meeting before the war broke out." Walt Disney was well known Nazi sympathiser and anti semite | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Oh.. Disney thanked the CCP for letting them film Mulan near concentration camps in the credits Fuck Disney Fucking scum bags" Also Pedro Pascal compared ALL republicans to Nazis. Grossly unfair and incorrect, but yet was publicly praised for it. Both sides are filled with hate, both sides push their own views on to others and if you don't agree with them and theirs then you are wrong. Both sides preach about being "good" but only accepts you when you agree with them. Extremists on both sides can get fucked. The left and the right are fine, but the extremists and their cultish ways... Fuck off. Then keep fucking off. Fuck off until you come up to a gate with a sign saying “You Can’t Fuck Off Past Here”. Climb over the gate, dream the impossible dream, and keep fucking off forever. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having read an overview without seeing any of the actual tweets, it seems like a classic case if Godwin's Law. We've all probably done it, but being a celebrity with a prominent platform means she probably should've known better. There are people who for some reason don't know the difference between saying something in your own private circle and broadcasting it for the whole world to see ""Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children. "Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. "How is that any different from hating someone for their political views." That is the content of the tweet afaik Nothing anti semtic about it all | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Orwell warned us. He said: “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” And “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Twitter has become the 2 minute hate. Extremists (from both sides) have turned it into rage. That I should live to see such times. Tear down statues if you must, silence descent, weaponise words and fill your days with the gnashing of teeth. When you wake from your slumber and finally wish to express just how beautiful, frightening, challenging and amazing other people are you will open your mouths and no words will come. They will have been outlawed. This is not the world I dreamed of. " Yep and certain people in this thread would be there screaming at Emmanuel Goldstein and happily giving up their parents to the Ministry of Love | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having read an overview without seeing any of the actual tweets, it seems like a classic case if Godwin's Law. We've all probably done it, but being a celebrity with a prominent platform means she probably should've known better. There are people who for some reason don't know the difference between saying something in your own private circle and broadcasting it for the whole world to see "In the court of public opinion and outrage the only punishment possible now seems to be getting fired. I'm not sure that a better option would of been education and correction and enlightenment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Orwell warned us. He said: “Don't you see that the whole aim of Newspeak is to narrow the range of thought? In the end we shall make thoughtcrime literally impossible, because there will be no words in which to express it.” And “Who controls the past controls the future. Who controls the present controls the past.” Twitter has become the 2 minute hate. Extremists (from both sides) have turned it into rage. That I should live to see such times. Tear down statues if you must, silence descent, weaponise words and fill your days with the gnashing of teeth. When you wake from your slumber and finally wish to express just how beautiful, frightening, challenging and amazing other people are you will open your mouths and no words will come. They will have been outlawed. This is not the world I dreamed of. " Beautifully put and terrifyingly accurate | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices."Yes she should have and hafe and hafe she’s always got a rematche with cyborg on the table but yes make movies and tv shows is definitely better that geting punch in the face for a living | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes she should have and hafe and hafe she’s always got a rematche with cyborg on the table but yes make movies and tv shows is definitely better that geting punch in the face for a living" Sounds like she might have had a really good thing going for awhile if she just... hadn't gone there. Yikes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices."That’s the thing isn’t it. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not a good thing or..... playing the devils advocate.... if someone feels that they are “fair game” in the street for their beliefs (religious, political, whatever) then the comparison is fair (in the woman’s quote I believe she stated that beings republican in America was like being a Jew in nazi Germany, (nazi Germany beginning in 1933, long before the Holocaust) We should remember the Holocaust not out of shame or guilt, we remember it to try to prevent it happening again, but it’s seeds were nurtured in intolerance and vilification of a group of people’s beliefs, if we forget how it began then the risk is high to repeat. I don’t know what it is like to be a republican in America, I don’t know how she feels, I imagine it’s hyperbole. But what if I’m wrong and I silenced a cry for help, for equality? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices."Comparisions to the holocaust if you are a conservertive is what you really mean. Would you say the same about AOC for example comparing ICE camps to concentration camps? What she said is factually correct Jews were linked to Bolshevism and also dehumanised for there perceived politics (ZOG and Jewish Bolshevism), not just religion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes she should have and hafe and hafe she’s always got a rematche with cyborg on the table but yes make movies and tv shows is definitely better that geting punch in the face for a living Sounds like she might have had a really good thing going for awhile if she just... hadn't gone there. Yikes." Yip definitely did have a good thing going | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices.
That’s the thing isn’t it. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not a good thing or..... playing the devils advocate.... if someone feels that they are “fair game” in the street for their beliefs (religious, political, whatever) then the comparison is fair (in the woman’s quote I believe she stated that beings republican in America was like being a Jew in nazi Germany, (nazi Germany beginning in 1933, long before the Holocaust)
We should remember the Holocaust not out of shame or guilt, we remember it to try to prevent it happening again, but it’s seeds were nurtured in intolerance and vilification of a group of people’s beliefs, if we forget how it began then the risk is high to repeat.
I don’t know what it is like to be a republican in America, I don’t know how she feels, I imagine it’s hyperbole. But what if I’m wrong and I silenced a cry for help, for equality? "She's not silenced, she's lost her job. Huge, huge difference. If things are so terrible then there are ways to express that without invoking the Holocaust. To take action. Maybe she should think before she speaks, like any of us must. Maybe she should consider the context of her speech. Where she's made tweets implying that the 2020 election was fraudulent, a movement which culminated in the first invasion of the US Capitol in over 200 years. Some of the insurrectionists wore merchandise saying "six million were not enough", which means exactly what you think it means. Maybe consequences for speech apply to everyone, even if they're conservative, and comparing anything to genocide other than... other genocide is bad. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes she should have and hafe and hafe she’s always got a rematche with cyborg on the table but yes make movies and tv shows is definitely better that geting punch in the face for a living Sounds like she might have had a really good thing going for awhile if she just... hadn't gone there. Yikes. Yip definitely did have a good thing going " Giving up on your beliefs which are entirely reasonable for monetary or social gain is what cowards do tbh she obviously isnt a coward | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having read an overview without seeing any of the actual tweets, it seems like a classic case if Godwin's Law. We've all probably done it, but being a celebrity with a prominent platform means she probably should've known better. There are people who for some reason don't know the difference between saying something in your own private circle and broadcasting it for the whole world to see
"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children.
"Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews.
"How is that any different from hating someone for their political views."
That is the content of the tweet afaik
Nothing anti semtic about it all
"But Pedro Pascal and his Nazi comments is acceptable. Hypocrisy by Disney. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes she should have and hafe and hafe she’s always got a rematche with cyborg on the table but yes make movies and tv shows is definitely better that geting punch in the face for a living Sounds like she might have had a really good thing going for awhile if she just... hadn't gone there. Yikes. Yip definitely did have a good thing going Giving up on your beliefs which are entirely reasonable for monetary or social gain is what cowards do tbh she obviously isnt a coward " Good. Freedom has won the day. She has spoken, she is heard. All is well. God bless America.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Having read an overview without seeing any of the actual tweets, it seems like a classic case if Godwin's Law. We've all probably done it, but being a celebrity with a prominent platform means she probably should've known better. There are people who for some reason don't know the difference between saying something in your own private circle and broadcasting it for the whole world to see
"Jews were beaten in the streets, not by Nazi soldiers but by their neighbors…even by children.
"Because history is edited, most people today don't realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews.
"How is that any different from hating someone for their political views."
That is the content of the tweet afaik
Nothing anti semtic about it all
But Pedro Pascal and his Nazi comments is acceptable. Hypocrisy by Disney."Because it fits the narrative they want to push Plus could you imagine the backlash Disney would of got from the progressive SJW cult on twitter if they did. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices.
That’s the thing isn’t it. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not a good thing or..... playing the devils advocate.... if someone feels that they are “fair game” in the street for their beliefs (religious, political, whatever) then the comparison is fair (in the woman’s quote I believe she stated that beings republican in America was like being a Jew in nazi Germany, (nazi Germany beginning in 1933, long before the Holocaust)
We should remember the Holocaust not out of shame or guilt, we remember it to try to prevent it happening again, but it’s seeds were nurtured in intolerance and vilification of a group of people’s beliefs, if we forget how it began then the risk is high to repeat.
I don’t know what it is like to be a republican in America, I don’t know how she feels, I imagine it’s hyperbole. But what if I’m wrong and I silenced a cry for help, for equality?
She's not silenced, she's lost her job. Huge, huge difference.
If things are so terrible then there are ways to express that without invoking the Holocaust. To take action.
Maybe she should think before she speaks, like any of us must.
Maybe she should consider the context of her speech. Where she's made tweets implying that the 2020 election was fraudulent, a movement which culminated in the first invasion of the US Capitol in over 200 years. Some of the insurrectionists wore merchandise saying "six million were not enough", which means exactly what you think it means.
Maybe consequences for speech apply to everyone, even if they're conservative, and comparing anything to genocide other than... other genocide is bad."“Some of the insurrectionists” but not her? “She questioned the legitimacy of an election” is that not allowed? Liberal messages on Laurence foxes Twitter suggested that they hoped his children died of cancer. Does that mean all liberals want that. In light of the fact that she is in the public eye, she is not allowed to question an election or compare how she feels to anyone else? Do you not see how dangerous that world is? Again. I will reiterate, comparing anything to the treatment of Jews in nazi Germany is foolhardy, how could she know how they felt? And if you don’t think, losing your job and being publicly vilified is being “silenced” then this world is more frightening than I thought. To clarify Do I know what is like to be a republican. No Do I believe the GE in America was fraudulent. No Do I think that people have a right to speak without fear of punishment. Unless they are tangibly inciting hatred. Yes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are." You see division. And that is the undoing of us all. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are." And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Then you wonder why there are insurrectionists." I also see "if you don't give me whatever I want I'm gonna scream and storm the Capitol! Because I'm strong, rational, stable, and on the side of democracy, I will overthrow it to have a tantrum! ... Oh we didn't succeed. Let's make peace. Please. Nice FBI. We like you, FBI   " | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" Yes she should have and hafe and hafe she’s always got a rematche with cyborg on the table but yes make movies and tv shows is definitely better that geting punch in the face for a living Sounds like she might have had a really good thing going for awhile if she just... hadn't gone there. Yikes. Yip definitely did have a good thing going Giving up on your beliefs which are entirely reasonable for monetary or social gain is what cowards do tbh she obviously isnt a coward " She’s definitely not a coward suprising she’s very nice to talk to mind you been little while from I spoke to her stardom and fame went to her head for shour | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. You see division. And that is the undoing of us all. " I see a bunch of spoiled brats who are used to getting their way. We need responsible adults and some discipline. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been "Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost "The other side? So you admit you are an authoritarian? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost "The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression. But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?) | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices."Yep. No point complaining about freedom of speed. She had that freedom and exercised it. She just lost her job for what she said. Nothing usual about that. It could happen to any one of us. Libel law is a good example, just because you say shit, doesn’t mean you’re free from retribution. In the US, they love quoting their First Amendment Right, but there’s plenty of defamation lawsuits out there too. As you suggest, she’s old enough to know better ... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost
The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression.
But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?) "The law gets to decide that. She can think what she likes. She can say what she likes. Her speech might have consequences, as it would under any area of law for any person (and under US law this certainly includes employment - at-will is the norm in 49 states). Why is she an exception? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I had wondered how old this person was. She's older than me. Not some kid running her mouth
... Old enough to know that comparisons to the Holocaust are kind of frowned upon? Maybe not a good idea? Might upset some people?
Old enough to know that that spin off series Disney were talking about might be a good gravy train?
She can say what she likes (that doesn't mean that people can't respond). But that's... not good life choices.
Yep. No point complaining about freedom of speed. She had that freedom and exercised it. She just lost her job for what she said. Nothing usual about that. It could happen to any one of us. Libel law is a good example, just because you say shit, doesn’t mean you’re free from retribution. In the US, they love quoting their First Amendment Right, but there’s plenty of defamation lawsuits out there too.
As you suggest, she’s old enough to know better ..."Defamation but also, freedom of speech applies to the government not employers. I'm also loving the virtue signalling going on here. It's cute. Melting like snowflakes at the prospect of someone else losing their jobs, becoming warriors for social justice. Signalling, virtuously, about healing division and wanting to protect the little guy against government (err... Company? Legal person under US law) oppression. How interesting it is. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost
The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression.
But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?)
The law gets to decide that.
She can think what she likes. She can say what she likes. Her speech might have consequences, as it would under any area of law for any person (and under US law this certainly includes employment - at-will is the norm in 49 states). Why is she an exception?"So you agree that Pascal should also be sacked about his comments essentially calling Republicans Nazi's? What about AOC calling ICE camps concentration camps? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She essentially said dehuminising your neighbour is what lead to holocaust Which is completly true "  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost
The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression.
But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?)
The law gets to decide that.
She can think what she likes. She can say what she likes. Her speech might have consequences, as it would under any area of law for any person (and under US law this certainly includes employment - at-will is the norm in 49 states). Why is she an exception?"She isn’t. I think that’s the point I’m trying to make.... I believe that any human being has a right to freedom of thought and expression that does not directly insight hatred or violence. I don’t believe that her comments have instigated violence, or hatred, I do not believe they were anti-Semitic. She expressed how she felt. I’ll judged in these modern times perhaps. If anything “cancelling” her will make her both a martyr and a target for both sides extremists. The very thing that was sort to avoid, inevitable. Freedom of speech or thought doesn’t just refer to your right to say or think something. It refers to your right not to be punished for those things. But alas. We have different views. I am a centrist. Extremists of either side, to me, waste damn fine oxygen. I believe I am allowed to say that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost
The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression.
But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?)
The law gets to decide that.
She can think what she likes. She can say what she likes. Her speech might have consequences, as it would under any area of law for any person (and under US law this certainly includes employment - at-will is the norm in 49 states). Why is she an exception?
So you agree that Pascal should also be sacked about his comments essentially calling Republicans Nazi's?
What about AOC calling ICE camps concentration camps?"I believe that these merit investigation and, under US law, corporations are entitled to make decisions as people. AOC is a bit different because it's government, but to the extent that it applies to her, ditto. The employers may decide as they choose. Individualism. Ain't it grand. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Then you wonder why there are insurrectionists. I also see "if you don't give me whatever I want I'm gonna scream and storm the Capitol! Because I'm strong, rational, stable, and on the side of democracy, I will overthrow it to have a tantrum! ... Oh we didn't succeed. Let's make peace. Please. Nice FBI. We like you, FBI ""And it still not going to mean anything now is it without votes  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost
The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression.
But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?)
The law gets to decide that.
She can think what she likes. She can say what she likes. Her speech might have consequences, as it would under any area of law for any person (and under US law this certainly includes employment - at-will is the norm in 49 states). Why is she an exception?
She isn’t. I think that’s the point I’m trying to make....
I believe that any human being has a right to freedom of thought and expression that does not directly insight hatred or violence. I don’t believe that her comments have instigated violence, or hatred, I do not believe they were anti-Semitic. She expressed how she felt. I’ll judged in these modern times perhaps. If anything “cancelling” her will make her both a martyr and a target for both sides extremists. The very thing that was sort to avoid, inevitable.
Freedom of speech or thought doesn’t just refer to your right to say or think something. It refers to your right not to be punished for those things.
But alas. We have different views. I am a centrist. Extremists of either side, to me, waste damn fine oxygen. I believe I am allowed to say that. "You are allowed to say that. She has freedom of speech. She's not been arrested. There. That's her freedom of speech. That's how it works. Others, including employers, may react. As Disney is a legal person under US law and employment under US law (except I think Montana) is "at will", they may fire her for any reason. So it's all fine. I'm glad we agree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I see someone speaking. I see that they're an adult in the public eye who is way too old not to know better. I see that doubly so in the current climate. I see a legal person at US law (Disney) responding. I see the response in accordance with US employment law. I see her not being punished by the government for her speech, as is her right under US free speech law. I see a culture war, I see hypocrisy. I see one side snivelling because the consequences in some cases they themselves made legal might now apply to them. I see people pretending not to understand, because it's convenient. I see who the real snowflakes are. And I see who the NKVD Officer would of been
Oh no the other side called me a name. My argument is lost
The “Spoiled brats” right? The only side I was taking was freedom of thought and expression.
But as you say “responsible adults” ( who gets to decide that, out of interest?)
The law gets to decide that.
She can think what she likes. She can say what she likes. Her speech might have consequences, as it would under any area of law for any person (and under US law this certainly includes employment - at-will is the norm in 49 states). Why is she an exception?
She isn’t. I think that’s the point I’m trying to make....
I believe that any human being has a right to freedom of thought and expression that does not directly insight hatred or violence. I don’t believe that her comments have instigated violence, or hatred, I do not believe they were anti-Semitic. She expressed how she felt. I’ll judged in these modern times perhaps. If anything “cancelling” her will make her both a martyr and a target for both sides extremists. The very thing that was sort to avoid, inevitable.
Freedom of speech or thought doesn’t just refer to your right to say or think something. It refers to your right not to be punished for those things.
But alas. We have different views. I am a centrist. Extremists of either side, to me, waste damn fine oxygen. I believe I am allowed to say that.
You are allowed to say that.
She has freedom of speech. She's not been arrested. There. That's her freedom of speech. That's how it works.
Others, including employers, may react. As Disney is a legal person under US law and employment under US law (except I think Montana) is "at will", they may fire her for any reason.
So it's all fine. I'm glad we agree."We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree " So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view?" Disney is an employer. Should we throw all workers rights out of the window, because somehow a multi-billion dollar Company has been registered as a person? Is an employee not protected by a disciplinary procedure? Was this followed? And to answer your question when does a companies reputation trump an individuals free will? I have said it before, I will reiterate. We don’t agree, we will most likely never agree, but that’s okay. It really is okay for two people not to agree, it’s okay that we have different opinions. I accept yours. Peace. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view?" It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? Disney is an employer. Should we throw all workers rights out of the window, because somehow a multi-billion dollar Company has been registered as a person? Is an employee not protected by a disciplinary procedure? Was this followed? And to answer your question when does a companies reputation trump an individuals free will? I have said it before, I will reiterate. We don’t agree, we will most likely never agree, but that’s okay. It really is okay for two people not to agree, it’s okay that we have different opinions. I accept yours. Peace. " I never said we couldn't agree. I accept that arguments happen and that disagreements isn't removal of another person or their right to speak. It's just a response. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words." So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"* couldn't disagree" To debate another’s opinion is a good thing in my book. It means you feel they have a valid opinion to debate. Be well | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests." None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo "What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust? Good grief. Words mean things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo
What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust?
Good grief. Words mean things."Freedom of persecution just for saying something. Who are the Nazi's now ? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo
What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust?
Good grief. Words mean things.
Freedom of persecution just for saying something. Who are the Nazi's now ? "Who's being persecuted? Words mean things. She was in a job where reputation matters and repeatedly said things that upset people. Are people not allowed to be upset? Is her employer not allowed to have enough of it? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo
What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust?
Good grief. Words mean things.
Freedom of persecution just for saying something. Who are the Nazi's now ?
Who's being persecuted?
Words mean things.
She was in a job where reputation matters and repeatedly said things that upset people.
Are people not allowed to be upset? Is her employer not allowed to have enough of it?"Isn't that in itself definition of free speech. The freedom to say anything without fear of persecution. Yet she was persecuted because she hurt someone's feelings. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo
What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust?
Good grief. Words mean things.
Freedom of persecution just for saying something. Who are the Nazi's now ?
Who's being persecuted?
Words mean things.
She was in a job where reputation matters and repeatedly said things that upset people.
Are people not allowed to be upset? Is her employer not allowed to have enough of it?
Isn't that in itself definition of free speech. The freedom to say anything without fear of persecution. Yet she was persecuted because she hurt someone's feelings. "Ok, on my planet, persecution means something a little bit stronger than "losing her job for doing damage to the company she works for". Like, the Jews in the Holocaust were persecuted. She just said a stupid thing and lost her job. As I keep saying, words mean things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo
What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust?
Good grief. Words mean things.
Freedom of persecution just for saying something. Who are the Nazi's now ?
Who's being persecuted?
Words mean things.
She was in a job where reputation matters and repeatedly said things that upset people.
Are people not allowed to be upset? Is her employer not allowed to have enough of it?
Isn't that in itself definition of free speech. The freedom to say anything without fear of persecution. Yet she was persecuted because she hurt someone's feelings.
Ok, on my planet, persecution means something a little bit stronger than "losing her job for doing damage to the company she works for".
Like, the Jews in the Holocaust were persecuted.
She just said a stupid thing and lost her job.
As I keep saying, words mean things."I suggest you look up the word persecution. Words do mean things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l I suggest you look up the word persecution. Words do mean things." I'm aware of what the word means, ta. I think this is "actions have consequences", not persecution. Clearly we disagree. That's fine. You're entitled to your opinion. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
" That’s the thing isn’t it. Comparisons to the Holocaust are not a good thing or..... playing the devils advocate.... if someone feels that they are “fair game” in the street for their beliefs (religious, political, whatever) then the comparison is fair (in the woman’s quote I believe she stated that beings republican in America was like being a Jew in nazi Germany, (nazi Germany beginning in 1933, long before the Holocaust) We should remember the Holocaust not out of shame or guilt, we remember it to try to prevent it happening again, but it’s seeds were nurtured in intolerance and vilification of a group of people’s beliefs, if we forget how it began then the risk is high to repeat. I don’t know what it is like to be a republican in America, I don’t know how she feels, I imagine it’s hyperbole. But what if I’m wrong and I silenced a cry for help, for equality? " I have nothing to say about this issue on Twitter because I don't tweet and I have no idea who the person in question is. What I'd like to contribute is that the period 1939-1945 is not the only period during which Jews were significantly negatively impacted by the Nazi regime. Yes, this period (especially 1941-45) was when mass, systematic slaughter took place on a industrial scale, but as soon as the Nazi government took office in 1933, persecution on an organised, national scale took place. Persecution of Jews in general did not suddenly start in the early 1930s though. Pogroms (anti Jewish violence and oppression/expulsion) happened throughout the 19th century across East and Central Europe, with refugees arriving in places like Poland, Germany, the Netherlands, France and the UK (and the USA) throughout the century, but especially from the 1870s onwards. Prior expulsions had occurred periodically throughout Europe across the centuries. My family were involved in the assistance of Jewish refugees of the Russian pogroms in the mid to late 19th century in the east of the Netherlands. My Great Grandfather later emigrated to the UK but all the family remaining in the Netherlands were exterminated, mainly in 1942, but all the way up to May 1945. My point is that the violence and hatred that culminated in the Shoah did not suddenly happen with the election of Adolf Hitler. He took existing prejudice and dislike, rumours, speculation and misunderstanding about the Jews and amplified it. He dug into the little niggles already existing in people's psyches and that had existed for a very very long time (many centuries overall), and he exploited the post-WW1 landscape in Germany to achieve his objectives. My family were arrested, deported and exterminated. I almost share a name (first and middle) with a relative who was 9 years old when she was gassed. You have to understand the landscape that was put in place for those non Jews who "co-operated" with the Nazis. If your choice was to preserve your own life and the lives of your children/family, vs the welfare of the family next door, don't be so sure about what you would do. Anyone found to harbour Jews or found to help them escape were tortured and killed. Knowing that can happen to you might influence your decision about dobbing in your neighbours and anyone who thinks they'd follow their principles 100% might be surprised what terror can do to your decision making. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? It is called social media not censure media. Let's just censure music now too because of lyrics drop them from their labels. Let's drop authors from publishers because if their words. So people are not allowed to hold views about what others do? Are not allowed to boycott? Companies are not allowed to make decisions based on the results of that? I thought response and boycott were free speech too. I thought companies could make decisions based on their own financial and reputational interests. None of this sounds vaguely familiar ? It's what started a Holocaust in the first place. How easy to forget.I don't like you so I must silence you. Great precedent to set. Bravo
What, freedom of debate, freedom of people to choose what to purchase, and freedom of companies to act in their best interest caused the Holocaust?
Good grief. Words mean things.
Freedom of persecution just for saying something. Who are the Nazi's now ?
Who's being persecuted?
Words mean things.
She was in a job where reputation matters and repeatedly said things that upset people.
Are people not allowed to be upset? Is her employer not allowed to have enough of it?
Isn't that in itself definition of free speech. The freedom to say anything without fear of persecution. Yet she was persecuted because she hurt someone's feelings. "That's not the definition. You should look it up... it's covered under article 10 Human rights act. You can't just say anything you want... and call it free speech. As already pointed out. Also not the correct use of the word persecution. The Jews were persecuted. Cara was not reemployed because her employer deemed what she said a reputational risk and outside of their values... for reference the post also included a picture! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? Disney is an employer. Should we throw all workers rights out of the window, because somehow a multi-billion dollar Company has been registered as a person? Is an employee not protected by a disciplinary procedure? Was this followed? And to answer your question when does a companies reputation trump an individuals free will? I have said it before, I will reiterate. We don’t agree, we will most likely never agree, but that’s okay. It really is okay for two people not to agree, it’s okay that we have different opinions. I accept yours. Peace. " I think that some people get a little confused by the type of employee rights that we have in the UK, compared with the employee rights in many other parts of the world. [To the extent that they don't realise quite how precious those rights are, but that's for a different thread]. It is absolutely true that it would be wrong for any employee to be summarily dismissed without regard for their terms of employment, no matter what they might say. In this country we have employment law that says you have a contract laying out the rights that you have, and the rights that your employer has, and the steps that have to be taken in order to dismiss you. This normally includes a disciplinary procedure with steps such as explaining to the employee the reason why the employer believes the employee has broken their contract, allowing the employee to respond (usually with union representation), and a sequence of verbal warnings, written warnings etc before dismissal can occur. In most states of the USA, employment law gives far fewer rights to employees. In particular there is usually a "dismissal at will" clause that allows employers to just tell somebody to go, without needing to explain anything to them, without them having any right of reply, without any representation, without any warning. The boss can just walk up to one of their employees and say "you, clear your desk, get out" and have the (now ex-) employee escorted out of the building within minutes. Depending on the particular contract of employment, there may not may not be some financial compensation required in lieu of notice, often this will only cover whatever salary payment is due up to the moment of dismissal. This type of employment law may or may not be moral, but in most parts of the USA it is the law. People take jobs and agree to those terms. Whether I or anybody else thinks that the system should be like that is totally immaterial. If that is the law, it is the law. And to answer your question "when does a companies reputation trump an individuals free will?" - under American employment law, under most contracts of employment in the USA, the companies reputation trumps the individuals free will any damn time that the employer says it does. Because that is the terms under which the employees take the jobs. Would I want to take a job under those terms? No I wouldn't. Which is one of the reasons why I prefer to be employed in the UK than in the USA (I had the opportunity some years ago to move to California with my company, in a position that would allow obtaining a green card and ultimately citizenship, it would have given more money but concomitant reductions in employee rights, human rights etc. My decision was to remain in the UK). But can I argue with Disney terminating somebody on the basis of things they have said? If Disney have not broken the terms of the contract with their employee, then of course I can't. And if Disney did break the terms of the employees contract, then I would expect the employee to take Disney to court, and the matter to be sorted out by a judge. Moral of this story: before you open your mouth, be very aware of what the right to free speech actually, legally, means. Not just what you think it might mean, or what some random on the internet has told you it means. Know the laws of the country you are in. Know the terms of any contractual obligations you might have as an individual. Know the terms of the media platform that you might speak via. Be aware of any legal damages that you might incur as a result of what you say or do. Be aware of the legal reprisals that others might be able to take against you. The right to free speech, in most countries, means merely that the government cannot randomly arrest you on the basis of things that you say, provided that you keep within certain legal limits. These limits are written down, the government cannot just arbitrarily change them. However free speech does not mean that you can say just anything you like, with no fear of reprisals. It does not release you from other contractual obligations that you might be subject to. It does not prevent other people for disliking you for what you say. It does not prevent other people from saying things about you in response, within the limits of the law and their own obligations etc. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. " I think Polly has explained the situation with US employment law, which would seem to apply (having had a quick read). | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"l We don’t agree, sorry, twisting the argument to what you believe I have said does not make what I said the same as you. She was fired. (Punished) for expressing her thoughts (free will). You think this is right. I think this is wrong. Ergo. We do not agree So you don't believe that businesses or people should be allowed to respond negatively to other people? Aren't debate and boycott also forms of speech? Should companies never be allowed to sanction employees for public speech which risks reputational damage? You think that freedom of speech should extend to freedom from consequences? How far does that extend? Why? As Disney is a person under US law, why are their First Amendment rights to respond curtailed under your view? Disney is an employer. Should we throw all workers rights out of the window, because somehow a multi-billion dollar Company has been registered as a person? Is an employee not protected by a disciplinary procedure? Was this followed? And to answer your question when does a companies reputation trump an individuals free will? I have said it before, I will reiterate. We don’t agree, we will most likely never agree, but that’s okay. It really is okay for two people not to agree, it’s okay that we have different opinions. I accept yours. Peace. I think that some people get a little confused by the type of employee rights that we have in the UK, compared with the employee rights in many other parts of the world. [To the extent that they don't realise quite how precious those rights are, but that's for a different thread]. It is absolutely true that it would be wrong for any employee to be summarily dismissed without regard for their terms of employment, no matter what they might say. In this country we have employment law that says you have a contract laying out the rights that you have, and the rights that your employer has, and the steps that have to be taken in order to dismiss you. This normally includes a disciplinary procedure with steps such as explaining to the employee the reason why the employer believes the employee has broken their contract, allowing the employee to respond (usually with union representation), and a sequence of verbal warnings, written warnings etc before dismissal can occur. In most states of the USA, employment law gives far fewer rights to employees. In particular there is usually a "dismissal at will" clause that allows employers to just tell somebody to go, without needing to explain anything to them, without them having any right of reply, without any representation, without any warning. The boss can just walk up to one of their employees and say "you, clear your desk, get out" and have the (now ex-) employee escorted out of the building within minutes. Depending on the particular contract of employment, there may not may not be some financial compensation required in lieu of notice, often this will only cover whatever salary payment is due up to the moment of dismissal. This type of employment law may or may not be moral, but in most parts of the USA it is the law. People take jobs and agree to those terms. Whether I or anybody else thinks that the system should be like that is totally immaterial. If that is the law, it is the law. And to answer your question "when does a companies reputation trump an individuals free will?" - under American employment law, under most contracts of employment in the USA, the companies reputation trumps the individuals free will any damn time that the employer says it does. Because that is the terms under which the employees take the jobs. Would I want to take a job under those terms? No I wouldn't. Which is one of the reasons why I prefer to be employed in the UK than in the USA (I had the opportunity some years ago to move to California with my company, in a position that would allow obtaining a green card and ultimately citizenship, it would have given more money but concomitant reductions in employee rights, human rights etc. My decision was to remain in the UK). But can I argue with Disney terminating somebody on the basis of things they have said? If Disney have not broken the terms of the contract with their employee, then of course I can't. And if Disney did break the terms of the employees contract, then I would expect the employee to take Disney to court, and the matter to be sorted out by a judge. Moral of this story: before you open your mouth, be very aware of what the right to free speech actually, legally, means. Not just what you think it might mean, or what some random on the internet has told you it means. Know the laws of the country you are in. Know the terms of any contractual obligations you might have as an individual. Know the terms of the media platform that you might speak via. Be aware of any legal damages that you might incur as a result of what you say or do. Be aware of the legal reprisals that others might be able to take against you. The right to free speech, in most countries, means merely that the government cannot randomly arrest you on the basis of things that you say, provided that you keep within certain legal limits. These limits are written down, the government cannot just arbitrarily change them. However free speech does not mean that you can say just anything you like, with no fear of reprisals. It does not release you from other contractual obligations that you might be subject to. It does not prevent other people for disliking you for what you say. It does not prevent other people from saying things about you in response, within the limits of the law and their own obligations etc." Can't take big tech to court here because section 230. IE Disney twitter ect ect ect.. technically they fall under that because of their streaming services. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. " As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works." What the funny part is some employers would frown on us discussing it on a swingers forum. Ironic lol. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works." And given the rise of such Shakespearean verse such as "get woke go broke", I suspect certain people are aware of this, and doth protest too much. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. And given the rise of such Shakespearean verse such as "get woke go broke", I suspect certain people are aware of this, and doth protest too much." Give me Freedom or give me death  Be a chess player not a chess piece. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. And given the rise of such Shakespearean verse such as "get woke go broke", I suspect certain people are aware of this, and doth protest too much. Give me Freedom or give me death Be a chess player not a chess piece."I mean, ok, but the other side is entitled to respond, that's how life goes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. And given the rise of such Shakespearean verse such as "get woke go broke", I suspect certain people are aware of this, and doth protest too much. Give me Freedom or give me death Be a chess player not a chess piece.
I mean, ok, but the other side is entitled to respond, that's how life goes."I can agree with that everyone should have a voice.  | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. I think Polly has explained the situation with US employment law, which would seem to apply (having had a quick read)." As of this morning I didn't have a clue who this person was so my comment was not really about this particular case and if she has broken her contract of employment, which most likely she had. So the actual letter of US employment law is irrelevant. My employment would be in jeopardy if I was to make similar claims on my social media even in the UK. My point is that I don't think I agree with someone losing their job if their personal comments are not breaking wider laws and they are still performing their job satisfactorily. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. What the funny part is some employers would frown on us discussing it on a swingers forum. Ironic lol. "Absolutely. My contract of employment includes a clause about not bringing the company into disrepute. As such if I named them and made any public statements about them, without having first obtained approval for whatever I might say, I would open myself up to the possibility of action being taken against me to the extent of my contractual obligations and the relevant employment law. Can the company take action against me merely for discussing unrelated matters on a public forum? No, as long as I stay within the limits of appropriate laws and I make no association with my employer of any statements I might make. But if I did something that was illegal, and association was made from me to my company, then action could be taken by my employer to whatever extent is allowed within my contract. Would my employer as a private person frown upon me having a profile upon a swingers website? I have no idea. My employer might possibly be a member themselves. Would my employer as a corporate entity frown upon me naming them, thus making an association between the company and a swinger website, and potentially affecting sales to customers who might not approve of swinging? Absolutely they would. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. " Well if her views have a negative impact on the company then she is no longer performing her job adequately. Investors hate PR scandals, Disney bosses may even share her views but in the interest of the business it would be wise to terminate her. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. What the funny part is some employers would frown on us discussing it on a swingers forum. Ironic lol.
Absolutely. My contract of employment includes a clause about not bringing the company into disrepute. As such if I named them and made any public statements about them, without having first obtained approval for whatever I might say, I would open myself up to the possibility of action being taken against me to the extent of my contractual obligations and the relevant employment law. Can the company take action against me merely for discussing unrelated matters on a public forum? No, as long as I stay within the limits of appropriate laws and I make no association with my employer of any statements I might make. But if I did something that was illegal, and association was made from me to my company, then action could be taken by my employer to whatever extent is allowed within my contract.
Would my employer as a private person frown upon me having a profile upon a swingers website? I have no idea. My employer might possibly be a member themselves. Would my employer as a corporate entity frown upon me naming them, thus making an association between the company and a swinger website, and potentially affecting sales to customers who might not approve of swinging? Absolutely they would."We both x military hubby was a officer. So it's just hilarious that we discussing this. Isn't social media grand. It's crazy how we all argue yet we have skeletons in our closets. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works." Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. I think Polly has explained the situation with US employment law, which would seem to apply (having had a quick read). As of this morning I didn't have a clue who this person was so my comment was not really about this particular case and if she has broken her contract of employment, which most likely she had. So the actual letter of US employment law is irrelevant. My employment would be in jeopardy if I was to make similar claims on my social media even in the UK. My point is that I don't think I agree with someone losing their job if their personal comments are not breaking wider laws and they are still performing their job satisfactorily. " However if somebody is associated as a "public face" of their employer, the requirement of performing their job satisfactorily might well include being careful what they say in public and on media. If your personal comments by association reflect back upon your employer, regardless of whether your words are legal or not, then your employer is perfectly within their right to take whatever steps they wish within the limits of your contract and the relevant employment law. But then the employer is also subject to the consequences of whatever actions they have taken - customers might disagree with their action and move their custom elsewhere, other employees might think the treatment was unfair and move their employment elsewhere. And so it goes. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. " But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. I think Polly has explained the situation with US employment law, which would seem to apply (having had a quick read). As of this morning I didn't have a clue who this person was so my comment was not really about this particular case and if she has broken her contract of employment, which most likely she had. So the actual letter of US employment law is irrelevant. My employment would be in jeopardy if I was to make similar claims on my social media even in the UK. My point is that I don't think I agree with someone losing their job if their personal comments are not breaking wider laws and they are still performing their job satisfactorily. However if somebody is associated as a "public face" of their employer, the requirement of performing their job satisfactorily might well include being careful what they say in public and on media. If your personal comments by association reflect back upon your employer, regardless of whether your words are legal or not, then your employer is perfectly within their right to take whatever steps they wish within the limits of your contract and the relevant employment law. But then the employer is also subject to the consequences of whatever actions they have taken - customers might disagree with their action and move their custom elsewhere, other employees might think the treatment was unfair and move their employment elsewhere. And so it goes." It's the free market in action. Capitalism, baby. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. I think Polly has explained the situation with US employment law, which would seem to apply (having had a quick read). As of this morning I didn't have a clue who this person was so my comment was not really about this particular case and if she has broken her contract of employment, which most likely she had. So the actual letter of US employment law is irrelevant. My employment would be in jeopardy if I was to make similar claims on my social media even in the UK. My point is that I don't think I agree with someone losing their job if their personal comments are not breaking wider laws and they are still performing their job satisfactorily. However if somebody is associated as a "public face" of their employer, the requirement of performing their job satisfactorily might well include being careful what they say in public and on media. If your personal comments by association reflect back upon your employer, regardless of whether your words are legal or not, then your employer is perfectly within their right to take whatever steps they wish within the limits of your contract and the relevant employment law. But then the employer is also subject to the consequences of whatever actions they have taken - customers might disagree with their action and move their custom elsewhere, other employees might think the treatment was unfair and move their employment elsewhere. And so it goes. It's the free market in action. Capitalism, baby." If capitalism took the NHS away because of government control can't afford it will you be satisfied. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. " I don't disagree with that. In an ideal world there would be little need for governmental control and everybody would just implicitly understand that eg. murder is bad, so it would not need to be written down as a law. Common sense and decency would be enough to let people live together. Sadly, often we see little common sense and little common decency. So the big stick has to be wielded to make people do the right thing. And then to make sure that the big stick is wielded fairly, we have to have a written code of laws. And government is invented. And so it goes... | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. I think Polly has explained the situation with US employment law, which would seem to apply (having had a quick read). As of this morning I didn't have a clue who this person was so my comment was not really about this particular case and if she has broken her contract of employment, which most likely she had. So the actual letter of US employment law is irrelevant. My employment would be in jeopardy if I was to make similar claims on my social media even in the UK. My point is that I don't think I agree with someone losing their job if their personal comments are not breaking wider laws and they are still performing their job satisfactorily. However if somebody is associated as a "public face" of their employer, the requirement of performing their job satisfactorily might well include being careful what they say in public and on media. If your personal comments by association reflect back upon your employer, regardless of whether your words are legal or not, then your employer is perfectly within their right to take whatever steps they wish within the limits of your contract and the relevant employment law. But then the employer is also subject to the consequences of whatever actions they have taken - customers might disagree with their action and move their custom elsewhere, other employees might think the treatment was unfair and move their employment elsewhere. And so it goes. It's the free market in action. Capitalism, baby. If capitalism took the NHS away because of government control can't afford it will you be satisfied. "Nope, because I don't believe that capitalism should be limitless. I've never claimed that. However, you seem to think that government should be very limited. So... employment protection? A function of government? Maybe we should leave it to the corporations to decide that when someone damages their reputation, they should be sacked. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. I don't disagree with that. In an ideal world there would be little need for governmental control and everybody would just implicitly understand that eg. murder is bad, so it would not need to be written down as a law. Common sense and decency would be enough to let people live together. Sadly, often we see little common sense and little common decency. So the big stick has to be wielded to make people do the right thing. And then to make sure that the big stick is wielded fairly, we have to have a written code of laws. And government is invented. And so it goes..." Depends on who owns that stick. Yes it was wrong to invade the capital building. But that stick here in the US can be weilded by anybody. Government work for the people they need to figure out a way. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. I don't disagree with that. In an ideal world there would be little need for governmental control and everybody would just implicitly understand that eg. murder is bad, so it would not need to be written down as a law. Common sense and decency would be enough to let people live together. Sadly, often we see little common sense and little common decency. So the big stick has to be wielded to make people do the right thing. And then to make sure that the big stick is wielded fairly, we have to have a written code of laws. And government is invented. And so it goes... Depends on who owns that stick. Yes it was wrong to invade the capital building. But that stick here in the US can be weilded by anybody. Government work for the people they need to figure out a way." The government are the ultimate authority. That's... quite literally the point of government. To be the arbiter of the things. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. I don't disagree with that. In an ideal world there would be little need for governmental control and everybody would just implicitly understand that eg. murder is bad, so it would not need to be written down as a law. Common sense and decency would be enough to let people live together. Sadly, often we see little common sense and little common decency. So the big stick has to be wielded to make people do the right thing. And then to make sure that the big stick is wielded fairly, we have to have a written code of laws. And government is invented. And so it goes... Depends on who owns that stick. Yes it was wrong to invade the capital building. But that stick here in the US can be weilded by anybody. Government work for the people they need to figure out a way. The government are the ultimate authority. That's... quite literally the point of government. To be the arbiter of the things." Our constitution states otherwise. The preamble states we the people. Not we the government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. I don't disagree with that. In an ideal world there would be little need for governmental control and everybody would just implicitly understand that eg. murder is bad, so it would not need to be written down as a law. Common sense and decency would be enough to let people live together. Sadly, often we see little common sense and little common decency. So the big stick has to be wielded to make people do the right thing. And then to make sure that the big stick is wielded fairly, we have to have a written code of laws. And government is invented. And so it goes... Depends on who owns that stick. Yes it was wrong to invade the capital building. But that stick here in the US can be weilded by anybody. Government work for the people they need to figure out a way. The government are the ultimate authority. That's... quite literally the point of government. To be the arbiter of the things. Our constitution states otherwise. The preamble states we the people. Not we the government." . That means people all races all political views all religion all genders. People.... Not big techs not big corps not government. It is the people. If people disagree they have that right. The impeachment is proving that point. Half disagree not the majority. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I'm in two minds. While I don't agree with most of the stuff she's posted, if it doesn't break the law, I'm not sure that people should lose their job because of their views, if they are performing their job adequately. It's a difficult one. As said above, whether it breaks the law or not is totally immaterial for the purpose of employment. All that matters is whether the contract of employment does or does not give the employer to right to terminate the employee. Of course, along the same principal, the employers right to terminate it's employee does not override your right to dislike that action, and for you to protest against it in any way that is legally open to you. Specifically in this case, if somebody disagrees with the action of Disney to terminate the employ of this actor, then they are perfectly free to refrain from spending money on viewing content produced by Disney. Of course also, if Disney took no action against the employee, or maybe issued a message of agreement with the actor, then again the paying customer is free to respond by stopping spending money on Disney. There are consequences of the actors actions, there are consequences of Disneys actions. That is the way that the law works, that is the way the world works. Exactly, my point is disagreeing that personal comments, albeit in the public domain, should be factored into someone's employment. Not specific to Disney sacking this actor. I assume they were quite within their rights to do that. But what defines rights anymore. Employment clauses, civil rights, tech rights or government. I prefer less government control. People control their destiny. I don't disagree with that. In an ideal world there would be little need for governmental control and everybody would just implicitly understand that eg. murder is bad, so it would not need to be written down as a law. Common sense and decency would be enough to let people live together. Sadly, often we see little common sense and little common decency. So the big stick has to be wielded to make people do the right thing. And then to make sure that the big stick is wielded fairly, we have to have a written code of laws. And government is invented. And so it goes... Depends on who owns that stick. Yes it was wrong to invade the capital building. But that stick here in the US can be weilded by anybody. Government work for the people they need to figure out a way. The government are the ultimate authority. That's... quite literally the point of government. To be the arbiter of the things. Our constitution states otherwise. The preamble states we the people. Not we the government." Fascinating. So the people make laws, decide penalties, work out how to allocate government revenue? There's, what, 330 million of you? That must be onerous, having all the people be involved. Is it like jury duty? Tell me your ways. Here we have this thing called "representative democracy", because getting tens of millions of us involved is far too administratively complicated. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple." ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say?" Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You make yourself incredibly unpopular with your views online then private companies wanting to maximise their profits aren't going to want to be associated with you *shrugs*" But yet it's the truth. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You make yourself incredibly unpopular with your views online then private companies wanting to maximise their profits aren't going to want to be associated with you *shrugs* But yet it's the truth." Which bit? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1" I've got no idea and honestly I don't care. You're the one claiming that the government doesn't do this stuff. The stuff I named is literally what governments do. Not British government, any government. It is *the* point of government. To pass laws, fix some things, and dole out the budget. Yes, including to private contractors. The idea that the government isn't the ultimate authority is kind of... uninformed about how countries work? | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1" UK Government isn't socialist, you know? We have a kind of public/private hybrid and the mix of public/private varies with different Governments but we have never been purely "Government does everything for you" nor "let the private sector decide". Capitalism is an economic model, not a method of government. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1 I've got no idea and honestly I don't care. You're the one claiming that the government doesn't do this stuff. The stuff I named is literally what governments do. Not British government, any government. It is *the* point of government. To pass laws, fix some things, and dole out the budget. Yes, including to private contractors. The idea that the government isn't the ultimate authority is kind of... uninformed about how countries work?" My point is like I said before be a chess player not a chess piece. I and my husband seen how other governments function it is horrible how women and other people get treated. Yet here we are tearing everything apart because of what someone posts. It is ludicrous. I seen tyranny twords women and other trains of thought. Be happy that people can have a voice don't condemn them for words. Being buried up to your neck and stoned is not a option. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1 I've got no idea and honestly I don't care. You're the one claiming that the government doesn't do this stuff. The stuff I named is literally what governments do. Not British government, any government. It is *the* point of government. To pass laws, fix some things, and dole out the budget. Yes, including to private contractors. The idea that the government isn't the ultimate authority is kind of... uninformed about how countries work? My point is like I said before be a chess player not a chess piece. I and my husband seen how other governments function it is horrible how women and other people get treated. Yet here we are tearing everything apart because of what someone posts. It is ludicrous. I seen tyranny twords women and other trains of thought. Be happy that people can have a voice don't condemn them for words. Being buried up to your neck and stoned is not a option." ... This is rather a long way from "the government decides things, ultimately" except apparently not because "we the people". I'm very happy that freedom of speech and expression are prized. I'm also glad they're not without limitation, and that people can respond to speech, including by protecting their reputation or by debating. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1 I've got no idea and honestly I don't care. You're the one claiming that the government doesn't do this stuff. The stuff I named is literally what governments do. Not British government, any government. It is *the* point of government. To pass laws, fix some things, and dole out the budget. Yes, including to private contractors. The idea that the government isn't the ultimate authority is kind of... uninformed about how countries work? My point is like I said before be a chess player not a chess piece. I and my husband seen how other governments function it is horrible how women and other people get treated. Yet here we are tearing everything apart because of what someone posts. It is ludicrous. I seen tyranny twords women and other trains of thought. Be happy that people can have a voice don't condemn them for words. Being buried up to your neck and stoned is not a option. ... This is rather a long way from "the government decides things, ultimately" except apparently not because "we the people". I'm very happy that freedom of speech and expression are prized. I'm also glad they're not without limitation, and that people can respond to speech, including by protecting their reputation or by debating." But yet you are condemning the same train of thought that we fought for. Free speech call me a idiot or call me wrong I can accept that. But there are alot of worse alternatives. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1 I've got no idea and honestly I don't care. You're the one claiming that the government doesn't do this stuff. The stuff I named is literally what governments do. Not British government, any government. It is *the* point of government. To pass laws, fix some things, and dole out the budget. Yes, including to private contractors. The idea that the government isn't the ultimate authority is kind of... uninformed about how countries work? My point is like I said before be a chess player not a chess piece. I and my husband seen how other governments function it is horrible how women and other people get treated. Yet here we are tearing everything apart because of what someone posts. It is ludicrous. I seen tyranny twords women and other trains of thought. Be happy that people can have a voice don't condemn them for words. Being buried up to your neck and stoned is not a option. ... This is rather a long way from "the government decides things, ultimately" except apparently not because "we the people". I'm very happy that freedom of speech and expression are prized. I'm also glad they're not without limitation, and that people can respond to speech, including by protecting their reputation or by debating. But yet you are condemning the same train of thought that we fought for. Free speech call me a idiot or call me wrong I can accept that. But there are alot of worse alternatives." I not condemning you it is your personal beliefs. That is what we are here for. I love your point of view I just stateing that there are alternatives that cannot be implemented. Loved the debate that is what is supposed to happen. Views not violence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"So in conclusion if you think someone's view is more important then yourself. You are the one with issues. We the US are a constitutional republic not a democracy as you think and have been told we are. It's we the people plain and simple. ... So if your government doesn't pass laws, collect taxes, allocate budgets, etc... What is it for? And how do you handle all this stuff if all the people are involved, as you say? Private sector aka the capitalsim you just quoted. Less government. Name me 1 US policy that has worked without private sector involvement. Just 1 I've got no idea and honestly I don't care. You're the one claiming that the government doesn't do this stuff. The stuff I named is literally what governments do. Not British government, any government. It is *the* point of government. To pass laws, fix some things, and dole out the budget. Yes, including to private contractors. The idea that the government isn't the ultimate authority is kind of... uninformed about how countries work? My point is like I said before be a chess player not a chess piece. I and my husband seen how other governments function it is horrible how women and other people get treated. Yet here we are tearing everything apart because of what someone posts. It is ludicrous. I seen tyranny twords women and other trains of thought. Be happy that people can have a voice don't condemn them for words. Being buried up to your neck and stoned is not a option. ... This is rather a long way from "the government decides things, ultimately" except apparently not because "we the people". I'm very happy that freedom of speech and expression are prized. I'm also glad they're not without limitation, and that people can respond to speech, including by protecting their reputation or by debating. But yet you are condemning the same train of thought that we fought for. Free speech call me a idiot or call me wrong I can accept that. But there are alot of worse alternatives. I not condemning you it is your personal beliefs. That is what we are here for. I love your point of view I just stateing that there are alternatives that cannot be implemented. Loved the debate that is what is supposed to happen. Views not violence." On a side note sometimes I feel like here comes that unpopular redneck patriot american. That's ok we all have our passionate views. Redneck or not. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You make yourself incredibly unpopular with your views online then private companies wanting to maximise their profits aren't going to want to be associated with you *shrugs* But yet it's the truth. Which bit? " Vaccines private entities. Not government. Phizer moderna Oxford .Like it or not government are not the end all answer now are they. I can list a multitude of private entities that advanced man kind more then what any government can. Like I said. We the people. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"You make yourself incredibly unpopular with your views online then private companies wanting to maximise their profits aren't going to want to be associated with you *shrugs* But yet it's the truth. Which bit? Vaccines private entities. Not government. Phizer moderna Oxford .Like it or not government are not the end all answer now are they. I can list a multitude of private entities that advanced man kind more then what any government can. Like I said. We the people. "You have your own destiny I choose differently is all. You want to think the government is the solution I choose otherwise. Not that hard to understand the choice other people choose. My mantra's may not sit well with others but that is why we can discuss and disagree. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
sorry it just I seen worse. Be good to one another no matter you re own views. We are human and we all have a destination to reach. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"We all have opinions and that is great but sometimes compromise is required " Yes be critical of other people's thought and consideration to their opinions. Not instantly condemn ridicule or persecute. They might have life experiences that apply different thoughts that can improve general consensus. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| Reply privately |
"You make yourself incredibly unpopular with your views online then private companies wanting to maximise their profits aren't going to want to be associated with you *shrugs* But yet it's the truth. Which bit? Vaccines private entities. Not government. Phizer moderna Oxford .Like it or not government are not the end all answer now are they. I can list a multitude of private entities that advanced man kind more then what any government can. Like I said. We the people.
You have your own destiny I choose differently is all. You want to think the government is the solution I choose otherwise. Not that hard to understand the choice other people choose. My mantra's may not sit well with others but that is why we can discuss and disagree."I'm sorry but I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to say or how it relates to my comment. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She deserved to be sacked. Freedom of speech is a qualified right, not an absolute one. " Is that not a concept drawn from the ECHR? that isn't something the yanks have, Unless I'm mistaken. I'd also argue nothing she said harms a person or the wider public. so no reason to violate her rights at all. She's a celebrity. who the fuck cares what these melts think? sing the song, dance the dance, make the jokey joke.. and then fuck off.. Why would I care what some Champagne socialist has to say about climate change from their mansion? I've never understood why we care what celebrities think about issues, they on average are far thicker than you'd expect, the mere fact you give her twitter ramblings validation makes you all the more stupid for doing so. Of course, this all being said.. Gina, please crush me with your thunder thighs 3 | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She deserved to be sacked. Freedom of speech is a qualified right, not an absolute one. Is that not a concept drawn from the ECHR? that isn't something the yanks have, Unless I'm mistaken. I'd also argue nothing she said harms a person or the wider public. so no reason to violate her rights at all. She's a celebrity. who the fuck cares what these melts think? sing the song, dance the dance, make the jokey joke.. and then fuck off.. Why would I care what some Champagne socialist has to say about climate change from their mansion? I've never understood why we care what celebrities think about issues, they on average are far thicker than you'd expect, the mere fact you give her twitter ramblings validation makes you all the more stupid for doing so. Of course, this all being said.. Gina, please crush me with your thunder thighs 3 " Feelings got hurt it is the new normal. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She deserved to be sacked. Freedom of speech is a qualified right, not an absolute one. " Over here and I’d agree. The US is different with it being a constitutional republic. It’s a constitutional right and so far as I’m aware the only legally prohibited speech there are those that put people in danger (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is the most given example). Disney, no matter how fundamentally rotten, devious and hypocritical it is, is a private company, so has a right to hire and fire whoever they like. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She deserved to be sacked. Freedom of speech is a qualified right, not an absolute one. Over here and I’d agree. The US is different with it being a constitutional republic. It’s a constitutional right and so far as I’m aware the only legally prohibited speech there are those that put people in danger (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is the most given example). Disney, no matter how fundamentally rotten, devious and hypocritical it is, is a private company, so has a right to hire and fire whoever they like. " That's true but it also depends on the state law. Some states require grounds for firing an employee while others don't. Either way, she exercised her freedom and others exercised their freedom to fire her. If you're an adult you must be responsible for your actions, whatever your view might be, it can have consequences. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She deserved to be sacked. Freedom of speech is a qualified right, not an absolute one. Over here and I’d agree. The US is different with it being a constitutional republic. It’s a constitutional right and so far as I’m aware the only legally prohibited speech there are those that put people in danger (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is the most given example). Disney, no matter how fundamentally rotten, devious and hypocritical it is, is a private company, so has a right to hire and fire whoever they like. That's true but it also depends on the state law. Some states require grounds for firing an employee while others don't. Either way, she exercised her freedom and others exercised their freedom to fire her. If you're an adult you must be responsible for your actions, whatever your view might be, it can have consequences." | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead " No, "free speech" has been adopted by right wing people (usually) as an attempted defense for when they say something crappy and other people point out that it's crappy, or choose not to be associated with them because of it. No one has the right for their opinions to be respected or given credence. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead No, "free speech" has been adopted by right wing people (usually) as an attempted defense for when they say something crappy and other people point out that it's crappy, or choose not to be associated with them because of it. No one has the right for their opinions to be respected or given credence. "
So much concern trolling. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"She deserved to be sacked. Freedom of speech is a qualified right, not an absolute one. Over here and I’d agree. The US is different with it being a constitutional republic. It’s a constitutional right and so far as I’m aware the only legally prohibited speech there are those that put people in danger (yelling ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre is the most given example). Disney, no matter how fundamentally rotten, devious and hypocritical it is, is a private company, so has a right to hire and fire whoever they like. That's true but it also depends on the state law. Some states require grounds for firing an employee while others don't. Either way, she exercised her freedom and others exercised their freedom to fire her. If you're an adult you must be responsible for your actions, whatever your view might be, it can have consequences." Spot on!!! | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead No, "free speech" has been adopted by right wing people (usually) as an attempted defense for when they say something crappy and other people point out that it's crappy, or choose not to be associated with them because of it. No one has the right for their opinions to be respected or given credence. " Fully agree. While my opinions on the Gina specific stuff are above, I've never understood the thought process of people that spout the "free speech is dead" bullshit. If you want to see what "free speech is dead" is really like, go to North Korea, or China. Free speech is well and truely dead in these places. Loss of job is the least of your worries in these places, imprisonment or death is much more likely for saying a lot less than what "free speech is dead" gets shouted out about in the west. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead in the digital world. "It's most definitely not | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead in the digital world. "She says, expressing dissent in a form of speech, in a digital form. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV! "For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Post opposing views Crowd gets mad "Feelings Hurt". Retribution because someone finds it offensive. People fear posting opposing views with fear of retribution. Voices silenced free speech in digital world is dead. Oppression." Isn't it funny how freedom works? You have the right to say shit. I have the right to mute you
Oh god bless freedom | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV!
For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord. "And that is why extremists from either side cannot hold a balanced conversation about freedom of expression. It results in name-calling, threats and conspiracies. There was a time when we could, I think, respect each other’s words, but people have become polarised. I maintain that Twitter and the like have manifest themselves as Orwell’s 2 minute Hate. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV!
For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord.
And that is why extremists from either side cannot hold a balanced conversation about freedom of expression.
It results in name-calling, threats and conspiracies.
There was a time when we could, I think, respect each other’s words, but people have become polarised.
I maintain that Twitter and the like have manifest themselves as Orwell’s 2 minute Hate. "I have had multiple nasty messages from people on here because of my views. I don't run to the forum mods and cry to them . It's their views I respect that. I don't find anything offensive it's a opposition to my own. My shirt for instance in my avatar good Lord the feelings. It's crazy. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV!
For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord.
And that is why extremists from either side cannot hold a balanced conversation about freedom of expression.
It results in name-calling, threats and conspiracies.
There was a time when we could, I think, respect each other’s words, but people have become polarised.
I maintain that Twitter and the like have manifest themselves as Orwell’s 2 minute Hate. "If "extremism" is opposing this silly nonsense then I'm an extremist. Glad we're clear on that. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV!
For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord.
And that is why extremists from either side cannot hold a balanced conversation about freedom of expression.
It results in name-calling, threats and conspiracies.
There was a time when we could, I think, respect each other’s words, but people have become polarised.
I maintain that Twitter and the like have manifest themselves as Orwell’s 2 minute Hate.
If "extremism" is opposing this silly nonsense then I'm an extremist. Glad we're clear on that."Good | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV!
For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord.
And that is why extremists from either side cannot hold a balanced conversation about freedom of expression.
It results in name-calling, threats and conspiracies.
There was a time when we could, I think, respect each other’s words, but people have become polarised.
I maintain that Twitter and the like have manifest themselves as Orwell’s 2 minute Hate.
I have had multiple nasty messages from people on here because of my views. I don't run to the forum mods and cry to them . It's their views I respect that. I don't find anything offensive it's a opposition to my own. My shirt for instance in my avatar good Lord the feelings. It's crazy."Totally off topic but the gun thing bemuses me. What's the appeal? Maybe we should save that for another thread. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"I wondered, yesterday, how long it would take for this thread to turn into a "conservative voices are being silenced" thread. For people who are suoposedly being silenced they ain't half incredibly vocal on the internet, radio and TV!
For people who label others snowflakes and offended, they sure do overreact. Good lord.
And that is why extremists from either side cannot hold a balanced conversation about freedom of expression.
It results in name-calling, threats and conspiracies.
There was a time when we could, I think, respect each other’s words, but people have become polarised.
I maintain that Twitter and the like have manifest themselves as Orwell’s 2 minute Hate.
I have had multiple nasty messages from people on here because of my views. I don't run to the forum mods and cry to them . It's their views I respect that. I don't find anything offensive it's a opposition to my own. My shirt for instance in my avatar good Lord the feelings. It's crazy.
Totally off topic but the gun thing bemuses me. What's the appeal? Maybe we should save that for another thread."We should don't want to offend anyone. Save it for another thread. Other views Hurt | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There will come a time when people (from both sides) will become too afraid to speak. Instead the world will be full of secret and deceit, the shadows will grow long in that world and in the shadows is where the dark things live. There will come a time when we “self mute” for fear of repercussions, when we lose the ability to communicate rationally. When that world is born, you will be told what to think, what to say, you will lose self-judgement in favour of mass judgement, if you wish to think anything, say anything, you will need to consider every syllable, not on what your head and heart tell you, but in what others heads and hearts have told them. Only then will people realise that it wasn’t about taking sides" *Shrug*. Whatever you like | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Would still love to cum all over her tits tho"
That character IS so hot. Just a character tho. The actress may be wrong as a person, but so was Michael Jackson in lots of ways. It won't stop me listening to Billie Jean. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There will come a time when people (from both sides) will become too afraid to speak. Instead the world will be full of secret and deceit, the shadows will grow long in that world and in the shadows is where the dark things live. There will come a time when we “self mute” for fear of repercussions, when we lose the ability to communicate rationally. When that world is born, you will be told what to think, what to say, you will lose self-judgement in favour of mass judgement, if you wish to think anything, say anything, you will need to consider every syllable, not on what your head and heart tell you, but in what others heads and hearts have told them. Only then will people realise that it wasn’t about taking sides" I mean, your wording is a bit Bram Stoker, but generally I get what you’re saying. Self censorship is what I see creeping up on us. Good example would be the GE in 2019. Wolf and I are from Labour heartlands so our social media accounts were awash with how evil the Tories are and how Labour were going to save the world. Anyone who showed even a sniff of support for Boris got rounded on. It didn’t matter in the end as everyone got their say in the privacy of the polling booth. Long as we still have the freedom to speak with the ballot then I can deal with anything. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"There will come a time when people (from both sides) will become too afraid to speak. Instead the world will be full of secret and deceit, the shadows will grow long in that world and in the shadows is where the dark things live. There will come a time when we “self mute” for fear of repercussions, when we lose the ability to communicate rationally. When that world is born, you will be told what to think, what to say, you will lose self-judgement in favour of mass judgement, if you wish to think anything, say anything, you will need to consider every syllable, not on what your head and heart tell you, but in what others heads and hearts have told them. Only then will people realise that it wasn’t about taking sides I mean, your wording is a bit Bram Stoker, but generally I get what you’re saying. Self censorship is what I see creeping up on us. Good example would be the GE in 2019. Wolf and I are from Labour heartlands so our social media accounts were awash with how evil the Tories are and how Labour were going to save the world. Anyone who showed even a sniff of support for Boris got rounded on. It didn’t matter in the end as everyone got their say in the privacy of the polling booth. Long as we still have the freedom to speak with the ballot then I can deal with anything. " Who doesn’t like a bit of drama?
| |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead No, "free speech" has been adopted by right wing people (usually) as an attempted defense for when they say something crappy and other people point out that it's crappy, or choose not to be associated with them because of it. No one has the right for their opinions to be respected or given credence. Fully agree. While my opinions on the Gina specific stuff are above, I've never understood the thought process of people that spout the "free speech is dead" bullshit. If you want to see what "free speech is dead" is really like, go to North Korea, or China. Free speech is well and truely dead in these places. Loss of job is the least of your worries in these places, imprisonment or death is much more likely for saying a lot less than what "free speech is dead" gets shouted out about in the west." Yup, go and see what it's like in Myanmar at the moment. I'm getting desperate messages from students who fear their contact with the outside world being severed (and therefore their education) and students unable to study because there are riots ongoing outside their front door, due to the military coup. The new "cyber security law" that the military issued overnight will see to freedom of speech in Myanmar. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
"Free speech is dead No, "free speech" has been adopted by right wing people (usually) as an attempted defense for when they say something crappy and other people point out that it's crappy, or choose not to be associated with them because of it. No one has the right for their opinions to be respected or given credence. Fully agree. While my opinions on the Gina specific stuff are above, I've never understood the thought process of people that spout the "free speech is dead" bullshit. If you want to see what "free speech is dead" is really like, go to North Korea, or China. Free speech is well and truely dead in these places. Loss of job is the least of your worries in these places, imprisonment or death is much more likely for saying a lot less than what "free speech is dead" gets shouted out about in the west. Yup, go and see what it's like in Myanmar at the moment. I'm getting desperate messages from students who fear their contact with the outside world being severed (and therefore their education) and students unable to study because there are riots ongoing outside their front door, due to the military coup. The new "cyber security law" that the military issued overnight will see to freedom of speech in Myanmar." It's bloody incredible, isn't it? And here we have people freely broadcasting their ideas and crying tyranny because they might be criticised, or they might face consequences for bringing their company into disrepute. Do these people expect that everyone else suppress their speech, or companies not act in their interest? Why is one form of legally permissible speech to be privileged over others, or the dealings of business? I'd thought that "people get to have opinions on what you say" and "the things you say and do might have consequences" is a lesson we teach toddlers. This whining is the epitome of first world problems. This isn't tyranny, let alone genocide. It's consequences. You know, the real world. Welcome to it. | |||
(closed, thread got too big) | |||
| Reply privately |
| back to top |  |
