A quick story about racism.

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way.
The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O

Yeah; people who don 't share your point of vu
need PERMISSION to have their own thoughts or (much worse) to express them.

Those who who spout irrational racist terms deserve to be limited in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale.

Cycloptichorn

For the sake of argument,
conceive of an Anti-Cycloptichorn -- the direct n exact
mirror-image opposite of yourself. (Yin Yang)
If the political pendulum keeps swinging,
as it always has, to the effect that the democratic process
elevates to power people of the Anti-Cycloptichorn's point of vu
then he will say:
"Those who who spout irrational non-racist terms deserve to be limited
in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale."

In other words, so far as thought police
or speech police are concerned: its only a question WHO 's OX IS GORED.

You are incorrect; that is what is known as a false equivalence.

It isn't about 'thought' police; you are allowed to think whatever you wish. However, there are certain standards of decorum which must be upheld in public, and especially at the workplace: namely, to not engage in speech which causes distress to others for no good reason.

This is why you see sexist, racist, and other forms of discriminatory speech banned: they add nothing to the workplace at all and severely detract from the environment for many.

Why you feel the need to defend racist speech is beyond me;
can you provide an explanation which does not revolve around agreement with that speech?

Cycloptichorn

OmSigDAVID wrote:

"Those who who spout irrational non-racist terms deserve to be limited
in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale."

I'd love to meet one of these people and have that debate.

T
K
O

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

DrewDad said it first.

Think about it the other way.
The opposite is one where we are permissive and what is the product of that?

T
K
O

Yeah; people who don 't share your point of vu
need PERMISSION to have their own thoughts or (much worse) to express them.

Those who who spout irrational racist terms deserve to be limited in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale.

Cycloptichorn

For the sake of argument,
conceive of an Anti-Cycloptichorn -- the direct n exact
mirror-image opposite of yourself. (Yin Yang)
If the political pendulum keeps swinging,
as it always has, to the effect that the democratic process
elevates to power people of the Anti-Cycloptichorn's point of vu
then he will say:
"Those who who spout irrational non-racist terms deserve to be limited
in their ability to do so within the workplace. The effects of this are directly harmful to morale."

In other words, so far as thought police
or speech police are concerned: its only a question WHO 's OX IS GORED.

You are incorrect; that is what is known as a false equivalence.

It isn't about 'thought' police; you are allowed to think whatever you wish. However, there are certain standards of decorum which must be upheld in public, and especially at the workplace: namely, to not engage in speech which causes distress to others for no good reason.

This is why you see sexist, racist, and other forms of discriminatory speech banned: they add nothing to the workplace at all and severely detract from the environment for many.

Why you feel the need to defend racist speech is beyond me;
can you provide an explanation which does not revolve around agreement with that speech?

Cycloptichorn

I can. I will.
The situation of which u approve is a USURPATION of power.
I re-iterate that proceeding upon this basis,
government has only the same authority as a schoolyard bully.

It is an artifact of historical random chance
that the philosophy that pleases u is in power at the moment.
If the exact other side were elected to replace it in the future,
u 'd not like the opinions to which u have objected to be MANDATED,
by successful politicians on the opposite side of the (figurative) coin.
Despotisms of the 1900s have already mandated that citizens
MUST say this and are prohibited from saying THAT.
It has cost innocent people their lives
to have said the rong thing or to have failed to say the right thing.

U don 't seem to understand
that u have propagated the idea
that we import that toxic extortion HERE,
as long as it points in the direction that u favor.

If the precedent of speech control is accepted
then its future direction can be changed to stifle dissent
in many different ways, some of which might be dear to your heart.
If the stiffling of dissent from what is currently in favor is accepted,
it can be used against YOU in the future.

I merely point out that government was never granted this authority.
Free speech shoud continue as it did from 1789 up thru the mid 1950s,
neither requiring nor prohibiting any form of speech.
Government shoud just play it straight,
employing only the powers granted to it.

Government was never authorized to turn people into hypocrits.

David

David, what are the benefits of racism that you see?

you're defending racist speech - you must see some benefits to racism to defend racist speech. or is this just a game for you?

Don't worry, I'm sure there will always be places where racists and sexists can meet in peace and feel free to espouse their beliefs. Just not in the workplace, where the freedoms of the individual are
far from the most important concern for the company.

Cycloptichorn

Racism, sexism and other hateful speech should not be tolerated in the workplace, for reasons which have nothing to do with government whatsoever, and everything to do with common decency.

You are turning a thread about allowable speech in the modern workplace, into your soapbox for ranting about government control of speech. Please stop. I don't care what your opinion about the government regulating your speech is; it is immaterial to the discussion we are having.

Quote:

Racism, sexism and other hateful speech should not be tolerated in the workplace, for reasons which have nothing to do with government whatsoever, and everything to do with common decency.

no one is preventing you from using your personal powers of persuasion to convince others to conform to your will. Once you have criminalized free speech, once you have formally punished a person for exercising free speech, you have gutted a core value of the Constitution and a major foundation of the USA. "I don't like it so you can't say it" is utter Bull ****. Don't listen, or tell everyone what an ass I am, but don't you dare tell me that I can't say whatever I damn well please.

uh unh, you're not getting away with that.

you're defending racist speech -
you must see some benefits to racism to defend racist speech.

or is this just a game for you?

Quote:

You are turning a thread about allowable speech in the modern workplace, into your soapbox for ranting about government control of speech. Please stop. I don't care what your opinion about the government regulating your speech is; it is immaterial to the discussion we are having.

the collective right to control individual speech is directly relevant to the thread subject.

You can say whatever you like, as you said; but you shouldn't expect to keep your job if you keep doing so. And you can rant all you want about that, it's perfectly fair and appropriate for them to shitcan your sexist and racist ass if you make others feel uncomfortable with your speech. You don't have any right to keep your job...

Quote:

You can say whatever you like, as you said; but you shouldn't expect to keep your job if you keep doing so. And you can rant all you want about that, it's perfectly fair and appropriate for them to shitcan your sexist and racist ass if you make others feel uncomfortable with your speech. You don't have any right to keep your job...

that is the current situation, given a series of Supreme Court decisions which have given employers huge rights to regulate the behavior of those who work for them, even personal behaviour off of the clock and outside of the business property. This miscarriage of justice must be addressed.

Quote:

you're defending racist speech - you must see some benefits to racism to defend racist speech. or is this just a game for you?

No way, a person can disavow and condemn what a another person says, but defend all free speech. I had a friend who would sometimes say to me " I hate what you just said, but I would defend to the death your right to say it"...as in defend the constitution. You folks who demand that all speech be evaluated for content on your personal moral value grid before you would defend it are weak defenders of freedom by comparison.

You are turning a thread about allowable speech in the modern workplace, into your soapbox for ranting about government control of speech. Please stop. I don't care what your opinion about the government regulating your speech is; it is immaterial to the discussion we are having.

Cycloptichorn

Quote:

Racism, sexism and other hateful speech should not be tolerated in the workplace, for reasons which have nothing to do with government whatsoever, and everything to do with common decency.

no one is preventing you from using your personal powers of persuasion to convince others to conform to your will. But once you have criminalized free speech, once you have formally punished a person for exercising free speech, you have gutted a core value of the Constitution and a major foundation of the USA. "I don't like it so you can't say it" is utter Bull ****. Don't listen, or tell everyone what an ass I am, but don't you dare tell me that I can't say whatever I damn well please.