The 2018 Midterms

[Julio3000]

You may wish to go to the original post I responded to, where the more was seen as authorianism... i responded directly to that claim, which caused your little hissy fit

Hmm. You responded with a substantial factual error, which I pointed out. All I did then was ask you how a transfer of power between branches = reducing government, how your libertarian principles squared with infringement of individual rights in this case, and if a law is actually a law...none of which you responded to with anything other than strawmen and tired-ass “screaming at the sky” schtick. You’re not a one-trick pony, but you’re about a three-trick pony.

 

[goldfly]

Republicans in Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin, and Michigan showing they don't care about rule of law, democracy or the will of the people

 

[smoltzie29]

Hmm. You responded with a substantial factual error, which I pointed out. All I did then was ask you how a transfer of power between branches = reducing government, how your libertarian principles squared with infringement of individual rights in this case, and if a law is actually a law...none of which you responded to with anything other than strawmen and tired-ass “screaming at the sky” schtick. You’re not a one-trick pony, but you’re about a three-trick pony.

I responded it that it was not in fact authoritarian, it was not illegal, it was not unprecedented. My libertarian views are such that I want less government power but you've assured me there is no such thing as a unicorn.

Likewise, you've become a liberal parody who shrieks about everything that Twitter shrieks about, and seem to get offended whenever someone invokes rationality and the hypocrisy of fake outrage.

To each their own

 

[Julio3000]

I responded it that it was not in fact authoritarian, it was not illegal, it was not unprecedented. My libertarian views are such that I want less government power but you've assured me there is no such thing as a unicorn.

Likewise, you've become a liberal parody who shrieks about everything that Twitter shrieks about, and seem to get offended whenever someone invokes rationality and the hypocrisy of fake outrage.

To each their own

Pot, kettle, etc.

You defended it on inaccurate grounds. I merely pointed this out. I never said it was unprecedented. I know otherwise, although it certainly appears to be part of a contemporary trend which I consider alarming. I further never said it was illegal, though some components of it may not pass legal muster in time.

I think the one who accuses others of shrieking is the one who spends much of his time shrieking at strawmen, particularly those of the Twitter-induced variety. It’s, like, your whole thing. Several times a day, whatever jewels you find on Twitter about the left losing its mind and shrieking at the sky and political correctness run amok...that is very much your jam.

 

[Julio3000]

I mean, what would we do without you to provide us Ben Shapiro’s take on AOC, or a Fox News story about banning “Baby It’s Cold Outside”?

 

[smoltzie29]

I mean, what would we do without you to provide us Ben Shapiro’s take on AOC, or a Fox News story about banning “Baby It’s Cold Outside”?

It was a CBS news story.

And I agree, I have my eyes on the media darling self avowed socialist who wants to run my life with the power of the state.

 

[Julio3000]

It was a CBS news story.

And I agree, I have my eyes on the media darling self avowed socialist who wants to run my life with the power of the state.

Ok, super. So who’s shrieking about whatever Twitter wants him to shriek about? Banned holiday songs, John Stossel’s YouTube video. Ben Shapiro’s mouth-farts. Political correctness on campus. It amounts to most of your contribution here, all day every day. As I’ve noted before, you perpetuate an ongoing thread which is mostly just you pulling tweets and screeching at “the left” (a concept which you struggle with but I assume basically intend to mean the more liberal persuasion on the board) about grievances which you insist they address. Again, it’s your schtick. I get it. Just stop the projection.

 

[smoltzie29]

Did you see the story about the VA teacher getting fired for not using the right pronoun?

Nothing better than the state coercing someone into doing something they dont believe in.

I suppose that's not worth discussing, though... bc it's not inherently anti-gop

 

[smoltzie29]

Ok, super. So who’s shrieking about whatever Twitter wants him to shriek about? Banned holiday songs, John Stossel’s YouTube video. Ben Shapiro’s mouth-farts. Political correctness on campus. It amounts to most of your contribution here, all day every day. As I’ve noted before, you perpetuate an ongoing thread which is mostly just you pulling tweets and screeching at “the left” (a concept which you struggle with but I assume basically intend to mean the more liberal persuasion on the board) about grievances which you insist they address. Again, it’s your schtick. I get it. Just stop the projection.

As a guy who likes freedom and individual liberty, I do care about things like certain speech being shut down.

I get it that you dont... but i do. So I'll keep bringing attention to it and you'll keep excusing it away. You may have noticed that this board is down to only leftists and myself. Seems like a good analogy of how our society is currently being shaped.

 

[nsacpi]

Did you see the story about the VA teacher getting fired for not using the right pronoun?

Nothing better than the state coercing someone into doing something they dont believe in.

I suppose that's not worth discussing, though... bc it's not inherently anti-gop

I think it is a generally recognized principle that employers (including public sector employers) have a certain amount of leeway as far as regulating how employees do their jobs. There is a balancing act to be struck between accommodating "beliefs" and being able to provide guidelines for performing a job. Some "beliefs" should not be accommodated at all.

I don't remember if you chimed in on the controversy about the NFL players taking a knee. My view is they can express those "beliefs" on their own time, but their employers (in this case the football teams) have a right to regulate behavior during company time that is alienating a segment of their customer base.

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I recognize that this is not an unfettered right in the workplace. Kevin Hart can say whatever he wants. And the Oscars have a right not to choose a host who has expressed certain views. That's how the cookie crumbles.

 

[smoltzie29]

I think it is a generally recognized principle that employers (including public sector employers) have a certain amount of leeway as far as regulating how employees do their jobs. There is a balancing act to be struck between accommodating "beliefs" and being able to provide guidelines for performing a job. Some "beliefs" should not be accommodated at all.

The teacher did not fail to do his job. He did not refuse to educate the kid.

He called the kid by the new name... but just didn't use any pronouns when referring to the kid. Mostly because pronouns dont magically change.

The state fired this employee bc he didn't submit to nonsense.

This is that slope people have been warning about. We've got a dad being sued for child abuse bc he wont dress his 6 year old as a girl, and we've got a teacher being fired bc he wont use an updated pronoun.

 

[smoltzie29]

I don't remember if you chimed in on the controversy about the NFL players taking a knee. My view is they can express those "beliefs" on their own time, but their employers (in this case the football teams) have a right to regulate behavior during company time that is alienating a segment of their customer base.

I'm a strong believer in freedom of speech, but I recognize that this is not an unfettered right in the workplace.

I did chime in. I said the NFL can do whatever it wants... but it was really dumb that they were doing it.

You're not a strong believer in speech if you're saying the state can restrict it. The NFL is not the government. That school is.

 

[nsacpi]

I did chime in. I said the NFL can do whatever it wants... but it was really dumb that they were doing it.

You're not a strong believer in speech if you're saying the state can restrict it. The NFL is not the government. That school is.

The state is not restricting this person's freedom of speech. She can say whatever she wants. She just can't say it while performing a job as a state employee. This distinction ought not to be that difficult to understand. A job is not a right. Only the people on the far left believe that.

 

[nsacpi]

The teacher did not fail to do his job. He did not refuse to educate the kid.

He called the kid by the new name... but just didn't use any pronouns when referring to the kid. Mostly because pronouns dont magically change.

The state fired this employee bc he didn't submit to nonsense.

The people who work for me don't get to decide which of my rules are nonsense (one of them just got fired for trying to do so). That's not how life in the workplace works.

 

[sturg33]

The state is not restricting this person's freedom of speech. She can say whatever she wants. She just can't say it while performing a job as a state employee. This distinction ought not to be that difficult to understand. A job is not a right. Only the people on the far left believe that.

First off, it's a guy. Here is the link to the story:

https://www.richmond.com/news/virgi...cle_65be1826-50b2-5d38-be58-47d9b9480917.html

Second of all, he's being fired for NOT saying something.

Third, by this logic, the state can dictate it's own rules for all it's employees. For example, they can say that nobody can say they like Donald Trump or they will be fired. I assume you understand why this is a problem in protecting speech, but perhaps I'm giving you too much credit. Or anyone who doesn't agree with climate change will be fired (I predict we will see this in our lifetimes, by the way)

Finally, where does this person's religious freedom come into the equation?

This guy was fired for NOT using a pronoun to a student (note, he wasn't using the wrong pronoun, he was just avoiding using a pronoun altogether).

The fact that you're defending this is crazy to me... but it's true you've likely lost your mind a while ago.

Carry on

 

[nsacpi]

Second of all, he's being fired for NOT saying something.

Sometimes a job REQUIRES adhering to rules about what to say. And not adhering to those rules (including not using certain words) is grounds for dismissal. Why is that so difficult to understand.

I know obtuseness is one of your tricks. But this is ridiculous.

 

[nsacpi]

Third, by this logic, the state can dictate it's own rules for all it's employees.

As an employer I have a certain amount of discretion. But it is not unlimited discretion. Ditto for the state.

But if I had an employee who wanted to be referred to by a certain pronoun (or one who changed his or her gender and now had a new name they wished to be called) and I wrote a memo to the rest of the staff asking that this wish be respected, I'm pretty sure the courts would uphold my rights to do this. And yes it is an infringement on their freedom of speech. And yes they can go find a job elsewhere.

 

[sturg33]

Sometimes a job REQUIRES adhering to rules about what to say. And not adhering to those rules (including not using certain words) is grounds for dismissal. Why is that so difficult to understand.

I know obtuseness is one of your tricks. But this is ridiculous.

I don't know what else to say. The government is forcing a person to adhere to non scientific language.

I don't agree with it. I don't agree when schools suspend students for not saying the pledge of allegiance. I wouldn't agree with a school in Texas forcing it's teachers to wear a MAGA hat.

I don't agree with the state coercing us into state-approved speech.

Apparently you do. I wish I were surprised

 

[Julio3000]

The teacher did not fail to do his job. He did not refuse to educate the kid.

He called the kid by the new name... but just didn't use any pronouns when referring to the kid. Mostly because pronouns dont magically change.

The state fired this employee bc he didn't submit to nonsense.

This is that slope people have been warning about. We've got a dad being sued for child abuse bc he wont dress his 6 year old as a girl, and we've got a teacher being fired bc he wont use an updated pronoun.

I’d like you to expound in this a little.

 

[nsacpi]

I’d like you to expound in this a little.

indeed