lol ok
Trump supporter loses her job on hit Star Wars TV show
- Thread starter Tony Stark
- Start date
The so called cancel culture is about summarily suppressing free speech, particularly when that speech can be associated with Conservative political ideology. No court case or trial needed. Off the cuff remarks, context, intent, and apologies are not considered. All it takes is a compliant or several complaints and decisive action, such as loss of one’s livelihood, is considered justified by some. What better way to suppress new ideas and political dissent?
Even where there are cases of obvious discrimination against a protected class, especially by a non “Professional” member of the public, such as a owner landlord using discriminatory language in advertising, the offender is given a chance to redeem themselves before further action is taken. By redeem, I mean the offending party is notified about laws regarding protected classes and given a chance to change their advertising.
Understanding context and intent is critical before drawing conclusions whether someone is attempting to cause significant harm to a protected class. Indeed, “Intent to cause significant harm” should be considered an element in the alleged commision of a hate crime. For example, what if someone said “You are such a stupid [Insert protected class] and the person saying it was also a member of that protected class? Sometimes one person’s “Hate speech” is another's term of endearment. How about someone who is intoxicated and under emotional distress lashing out with an off-the-cuff remark? How about someone saying something that was misinterpreted or interpretable as potentially offensive by a protected class, or seemingly more likely nowadays, someone “Acting on behalf” of a protected class because of their own political motivations?
There are few more severe penalties than the loss of one’s livelihood. Courts may impose fines or suspended sentences for crimes, but will often avoid giving jail time to employed individuals because of the compounding effect the loss of the defendant’s job could have. Assuming, of course, the crime the defendant was convicted of was not too serious.
So in effect, cancel culture is about denying political freedom and free speech with penalties that often vastly exceed someone being convicted of a hate crime without a even a trial where evidence is presented and witness testimony is weighed.
Seems to me, cancel culture is a form of hate speech and where someone, such as an employer terminates someone else because of this, they are engaging or assisting in an act of hate over politics. Where things can get “Fun” is where religious and political philosophy overlap. There plenty of other overlaps that victims of cancel culture can apply for potential legal remedies. Do we really need to see employers and our court system overwhelmed with such cases? It may be good for lawyers, like so many events in recent years, but for most of us, not so much.
There should be laws protecting employees and employers from cancel culture hate. Inaction of the Biden Administration on this matter would say all we need to know about their true intent as far as governance is concerned. It would mean the Biden Administration is not really about maintaining justice or unifying the country. Rather, inaction on such an important matter would show they are about total partisan control and that any well intentioned dissent, a fundamental part of Democracy, will not be tolerated.
If cancel culture is left unchecked, the potential for civil unrest and adverse economic measures and effects increases, potentially harming everyone, including those who are part of the cancel culture itself.
Even where there are cases of obvious discrimination against a protected class, especially by a non “Professional” member of the public, such as a owner landlord using discriminatory language in advertising, the offender is given a chance to redeem themselves before further action is taken. By redeem, I mean the offending party is notified about laws regarding protected classes and given a chance to change their advertising.
Understanding context and intent is critical before drawing conclusions whether someone is attempting to cause significant harm to a protected class. Indeed, “Intent to cause significant harm” should be considered an element in the alleged commision of a hate crime. For example, what if someone said “You are such a stupid [Insert protected class] and the person saying it was also a member of that protected class? Sometimes one person’s “Hate speech” is another's term of endearment. How about someone who is intoxicated and under emotional distress lashing out with an off-the-cuff remark? How about someone saying something that was misinterpreted or interpretable as potentially offensive by a protected class, or seemingly more likely nowadays, someone “Acting on behalf” of a protected class because of their own political motivations?
There are few more severe penalties than the loss of one’s livelihood. Courts may impose fines or suspended sentences for crimes, but will often avoid giving jail time to employed individuals because of the compounding effect the loss of the defendant’s job could have. Assuming, of course, the crime the defendant was convicted of was not too serious.
So in effect, cancel culture is about denying political freedom and free speech with penalties that often vastly exceed someone being convicted of a hate crime without a even a trial where evidence is presented and witness testimony is weighed.
Seems to me, cancel culture is a form of hate speech and where someone, such as an employer terminates someone else because of this, they are engaging or assisting in an act of hate over politics. Where things can get “Fun” is where religious and political philosophy overlap. There plenty of other overlaps that victims of cancel culture can apply for potential legal remedies. Do we really need to see employers and our court system overwhelmed with such cases? It may be good for lawyers, like so many events in recent years, but for most of us, not so much.
There should be laws protecting employees and employers from cancel culture hate. Inaction of the Biden Administration on this matter would say all we need to know about their true intent as far as governance is concerned. It would mean the Biden Administration is not really about maintaining justice or unifying the country. Rather, inaction on such an important matter would show they are about total partisan control and that any well intentioned dissent, a fundamental part of Democracy, will not be tolerated.
If cancel culture is left unchecked, the potential for civil unrest and adverse economic measures and effects increases, potentially harming everyone, including those who are part of the cancel culture itself.
The real bottom line is that employers, in at will states, can hire and fire at will.
You either want to put socialist restrictions on employers regarding their employees; or you want to maintain a free market society.
You seem to want socialism, when it's to your benefit. Which is it; or are you just a hypocrite?
Twitter can ban whoever they want.
Stores can require masks.
Employers can fire whoever they want.
This is the free market, capitalist society you wanted not too long ago.
Now you've become a socialist. Own it.
Here you go:
https://berniesanders.com/
You right wingers wonder how Trump lost 60 lawsuits and try to tell people there’s a conspiracy of wide spread voter fraud in black communities in 4 specific states. Trump pushed and pushed this big lie and it was amplified by his supporters, including this lady who would love to see American voters disenfranchised and cheated simply because they are black. Hence the targeting. The claim of fraud is baseless and a pretext for disenfranchisement.
Now I understand you’re not exactly what most people would consider smart, and that’s ok. The problem is you don’t realize you’re not smart and that this argument that there is widespread voter fraud in black communities is absurd on its face. It’s obviously pretext.
Stupid argument right off of the bat. This lady’s free speech in no way was suppressed.
Wrong. There are certain rights and benefits mandated by laws employers must apply equally, other than that if the law doesn’t apply then no internal policy can be taken to court unless you prove a connection to a protected class or some sort of law like safety, etc.
LOL
Many employers wish we were fully “at-will” and didn’t have those pesky federal employment laws. So they could fire anyone for any reason on any day... you know like firing the the woman in the office cause you decided that you only wanted males on your team. Fortunately for employees the EEOC and federal protections are rather broad - hence companies must be very careful to apply HR practices equally to all employees.
At least I take a consistent stand based on principle on this matter - I stated previously that the forced resignation of Al Franken due to the effort to cancel him was inappropriate.
You believing that it is just fine to select which people to cancel based on your political leanings is a demonstration of a lack of principle or decency. Either it is acceptable to cancel anyone (and have a mob on the internet force them out of their job) for any infraction or it is not acceptable at all.
Political affiliation is not protected. Speech is not protected.
Stop whining about some made up "cancel culture." Unless you're a socialist. And if so, just admit it.
That film company can legally fire employees for being a Q-a-nut, or Magatarded, or racist, or ignorant, etc. Many other employers can do the same.
That's capitalism at work.
Employers can listen to consumers, or not. They can agree with them, or not. But who are you to automatically assume that the employer was 'forced.'
The same logic applies to labor strikes, and consumer boycotts.
Either you believe in capitalism, or you believe in something that isn't capitalism.