Red Mosquito

E.H. Ruddock wrote:

Simple Torture wrote:

VinylGuy wrote: Im going to get cancelled because of this right?

It's a good thing that the concept of being "cancelled" is a hysterical fantasy perpetrated by a bunch of lunatics. You're in the clear!

Any word from your brother in law?

Sorry, no, he's been cancelled.

tragabigzanda wrote:Philosophically speaking, I think the human need to share every fucking thought one has on the internet is way more damning for our culture than a corporations' right to protect it's publicly-traded stock price by whatever legal means are available.

Free speech doesn’t mean you can say whatever you want without consequences too.

Technically that's exactly what free speech means. But what should be the consequences here?

Isn't this simply a case of a company wanting to distance themselves from someone expressing an unpopular opinion? I don't think it's anymore nefarious than that.

Well you get what you deserve I guess.

tragabigzanda wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Technically that's exactly what free speech means. But what should be the consequences here?

At the discretion of the employer.

Edit: And subject to all applicable laws and regulations, including the employee's right to legal recourse.

Justifications for limitations to freedom of speech often reference the "harm principle" or the "offence principle". Limitations to freedom of speech may occur through legal sanction or social disapprobation, or both.[30] Certain public institutions may also enact policies restricting the freedom of speech, for example speech codes at state schools.

The maxims are, first, that the individual is not accountable to society for his actions, in so far as these concern the interests of no person but himself. Advice, instruction, persuasion, and avoidance by other people, if thought necessary by them for their own good, are the only measures by which society can justifiably express its dislike or disapprobation of his conduct. Secondly, that for such actions as are prejudicial to the interests of others, the individual is accountable, and may be subjected either to social or to legal punishments, if society is of opinion that the one or the other is requisite for its protection.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harm_principle

tragabigzanda wrote:Weird to see Burt fighting against the power of the market to self correct stupid behavior. Seems like something he'd be all in on.

It has nothing to do with markets (and no, I'm not a libertarian anyway). Markets could actually fix the problem if the masses had any spine left.

Its insane to me that the masses want to establish a societal norm that says your boss (who has no special authority in the matter) has the mandate to fire people for what they say in their private lives. It is the utter definition of acting against your own interests (unless you are a business owner or CEO - in that case go for it).

Keep in mind that I am NOT saying that it's illegal or that it should be illegal. You don't have to pass a law every time something bad happens. I'm saying the masses shouldn't except it. The reaction should be disgust. Actions should be taken. CEOs should be shamed. Corporate profits should drop. But instead the masses wholeheartedly embrace their servitude.


And I don't give a remote fuck about it "negatively reflecting on the business". That's a bullshit excuse. If you believe in liberal democracy, you have to have at least enough faith in humanity to believe that they can tell the difference between an employee saying shit on their own time and the company that they work for. But then again, it seems increasingly obvious to me that even that little faith in the masses is too much.

BurtReynolds wrote:Technically that's exactly what free speech means. But what should be the consequences here?

so she said what she said. who stopped her from saying it?

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Weird to see Burt fighting against the power of the market to self correct stupid behavior. Seems like something he'd be all in on.

It has nothing to do with markets (and no, I'm not a libertarian anyway). Markets could actually fix the problem if the masses had any spine left.

Its insane to me that the masses want to establish a societal norm that says your boss (who has no special authority in the matter) has the mandate to fire people for what they say in their private lives. It is the utter definition of acting against your own interests (unless you are a business owner or CEO - in that case go for it).

Keep in mind that I am NOT saying that it's illegal or that it should be illegal. You don't have to pass a law every time something bad happens. I'm saying the masses shouldn't except it. The reaction should be disgust. Actions should be taken. CEOs should be shamed. Corporate profits should drop. But instead the masses wholeheartedly embrace their servitude.


And I don't give a remote fuck about it "negatively reflecting on the business". That's a bullshit excuse. If you believe in liberal democracy, you have to have at least enough faith in humanity to believe that they can tell the difference between an employee saying shit on their own time and the company that they work for. But then again, it seems increasingly obvious to me that even that little faith in the masses is too much.

more like asses, amirite?

BurtReynolds wrote:

tragabigzanda wrote:Weird to see Burt fighting against the power of the market to self correct stupid behavior. Seems like something he'd be all in on.

It has nothing to do with markets (and no, I'm not a libertarian anyway). Markets could actually fix the problem if the masses had any spine left.

Its insane to me that the masses want to establish a societal norm that says your boss (who has no special authority in the matter) has the mandate to fire people for what they say in their private lives. It is the utter definition of acting against your own interests (unless you are a business owner or CEO - in that case go for it).

Keep in mind that I am NOT saying that it's illegal or that it should be illegal. You don't have to pass a law every time something bad happens. I'm saying the masses shouldn't except it. The reaction should be disgust. Actions should be taken. CEOs should be shamed. Corporate profits should drop. But instead the masses wholeheartedly embrace their servitude.


And I don't give a remote fuck about it "negatively reflecting on the business". That's a bullshit excuse. If you believe in liberal democracy, you have to have at least enough faith in humanity to believe that they can tell the difference between an employee saying shit on their own time and the company that they work for. But then again, it seems increasingly obvious to me that even that little faith in the masses is too much.

*accept

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Technically that's exactly what free speech means. But what should be the consequences here?

so she said what she said. who stopped her from saying it?

I'm joking a little there, but just pointing out that free speech in its most fundamental sense is literally being able to say what you want without negative consequences.



But practically speaking, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences? Ok, fine. I just want to know what the consequences in this particular case should be. Otherwise, saying "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is just hot air.

edit: Should the consequences be that she is fired and the masses should celebrate? And in doing so grant people with already immense power over you even more power?

Simple Torture wrote: *accept

thanks

BurtReynolds wrote:free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences? Ok, fine

We got him dot gif

BurtReynolds wrote:

Peeps wrote:

BurtReynolds wrote:Technically that's exactly what free speech means. But what should be the consequences here?

so she said what she said. who stopped her from saying it?

I'm joking a little there, but just pointing out that free speech in its most fundamental sense is literally being able to say what you want without negative consequences.



But practically speaking, free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences? Ok, fine. I just want to know what the consequences in this particular case should be. Otherwise, saying "free speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is just hot air.

edit: Should the consequences be that she is fired and the masses should celebrate? And in doing so grant people with already immense power over you even more power?

it is not up to me to decide the consequences nor is it up to you. it is up to her employer. while she is a private citizen she is hardly a normal private citizen she has just over 725K followers. her words/thoughts carry a little more weight than the average person

i make a comment on twitter almost no one knows the company i work for


she makes a comment quite a few people know she works for the mouse

Weird to see so many arguing for the multi billion dollar business against an employee, only because she said something im her personal life.