Earlier quoted context omitted.
Over the perception of their actions, not their actual actions. Nobody anywhere would care a single bit were there not mass hysteria. Also it's not necessarily harassment to call out people if they are not doing their jobs. It's just very (almost pathetically) petty.
>Over the perception of their actions, not their actual actions. Trying to discuss in good faith here so hopefully this doesn't garner venom: it doesn't feel novel to be fired or quit over public perception of actions or statements - all my corporate employers since the onset of social media have had disclaimers to not enter the public discourse in such a way that might cause negative publicity for them. >Nobody anyw…
Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
451–460 of 597 posts
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#452Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I want to talk politics, I do it with my friends over a beer. As a former Soviet citizen, this is particularly funny to me. Where the safest place for political discussion was at home, in the kitchen, with vodka and couple of good friends. It was part of Soviet culture back then.
Even then you could still end up in the gulag. My wife's great grandfather spent years in work camps because his drinking "friends" turned him in for expressing "unfavourable opinions about Stalin". While not anywhere nearly that extreme, it makes me nervous that we're moving in that direction culturally (where it's socially acceptable and encouraged to turn someone in for having the "wrong" thoughts).
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#453Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, reminds me of the difference of treatment between Sam and Frodo in Lord of the Rings: >> Looking in a mirror he was startled to see a much thinner reflection of himself than he remembered: it looked remarkably like the young nephew of Bilbo who used to go tramping with his uncle in the Shire; but the eyes looked at him thoughtfully. > Pauline Baynes's illustration of the Fellowship, done while Tolkien was alive,…
FWIW, in Lord of the Rings, it was implied that the change in Frodo was due to carrying the One Ring, and that it was due to it that he couldn't rejoin normal life while the other Hobbits could (and in Shire, ultimately became much more famous)
It's early in the book.
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#454Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Disabled" is being replaced by "differently abled".
That one was used pejoratively pretty much instantly, so never had much momentum, so my understanding is "person with disabilities" is the currently correct term.
1. https://www.disabled-world.com/definitions/disability-disabl...
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#455The Left is using psychological projection as a technique. They accuse their opponents of doing exactly what they themselves are doing. They'll call you a fascist while they burn books. They'll call you racist while accusing you of "white privilege". Like you say, they'll destroy people's lives, based on racial hatred, while accusing those people of racial hatred. Domestic terrorism.
Stop pretending otherwise!
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#456Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, this is a different argument from the one you were making before. You first post is about ingestion of media. This one is about production. This is a very different claim, but still requires evidence beyond stating that there is some. Can you help me out and provide some?
I'm not sure if you're asking in good-faith, your comment history shows a history of "Sea-lioning" (a term I just learned myself today): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sealioning From the original web-comic: http://wondermark.com/1k62/
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#457Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the horseshoe theory works. The critical factor is authoritarianism. Which is a grown-up word for bullying and narcissism. Authoritarians are invariably toxic damaged people who are full of rage and are looking for a target to make themselves feel better. Sometimes they end up on the left. Sometimes they end up on the right. Sometimes they end up in management or venture capital. Same issues, same dynam…
Pretty sure leftist authoritarianism exists and is violent. i.e.: Communist Russia, Maoist China, Cuba.
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#458Earlier quoted context omitted.
Given that this statement is false — "Gab and Parler are religious social networks" — a judge would likely require a pattern of hostility to be shown, or for the firings to coincide with expression of protected religious beliefs that are not also considered hate speech. (If they're considered hate speech, they're no longer protected expression, regardless of whether they're claimed to be religion or not.)
You know this how? https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/can-employers-discri... Specifically: “ Even if you work in a state that doesn’t protect employees from political discrimination, you might still have a legal claim if your employer’s actions were really based on a protected trait under Title VII or a similar state law. For example, if African American employees are fired for participating in a Black Lives Ma…
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#459Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don’t you guys have crosses on government buildings? https://www.cnn.com/2018/05/31/europe/bavaria-germany-crosse... Didn’t Angela Merkel reject “multiculturalism?” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2015/12/14... Don’t you have religious education in public schools? https://www.dw.com/en/in-german-schools-opt-out-of-religion-... Isn’t abortion still technically illegally in Germany? https://www.dw.com…
Oof, I won't go into details, but you got a couple of things wrong about Germany. First, the crosses on gov't buildings are specific to Bavaria. As the USA, Germany has a strong federal constitution which allows the states some lee-way. Furthermore the German Constitutional Court has ruled crosses in schools must be removed if parents object, a ruling that was partially overruled by the ECHR. Second, Merkel's remarks…
That's true in theory, but the Supreme Court has taken upon itself to impose uniform standards for the whole nation. As I recall, the German Constitutional Court upheld the practice in general, reasoning that it was an expression of Germany's heritage as a Christian nation. It then balanced that principle against the potential burden on religious minorities, to fashion that compromise.
In the United States, we're not allowed to acknowledge the country's heritage as a Christian country. More important, there is generally no balancing between the cultural expression of the majority and the interests of the minority. That's a huge difference between American and German constitutional law. In German constitutional law, there is a strong balancing of minority rights against the effect of certain things on the majority. In American constitutional law, almost zero weight is given to how recognizing a minority right (such as the right to be free from feeling excluded by seeing a cross in a school house) might affect the cultural expression oof the majority.
> Second, Merkel's remarks were rather specific to a form of living together without an overarching attempt at having and enforcing core values. She did not reject other cultures or beliefs. I doubt her position would be controversial in a country with the "e pluribus unum" as part of the brand identity, but I can't really say as I don't know the USA too well.
Merkel appears to be using the term according to its typical meaning. "Multiculturalism" means you have a country with people of different cultures living together, without an attempt to impose unifying core values. And rejecting multiculturalism in that sense is controversial. Mike Pompeo, the Secretary of State, was attacked as a racist recently for saying the same thing. He didn't "reject other cultures or belies." As far as I can tell, he and other American conservatives use the phrase to mean exactly the same thing as Merkel does.
> In Germany, due to our voting system, the conservative party is as much a coalition as the Democrats in the USA while the left is more splintered.
It's not just the voting system, it's the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has allowed social liberals to impose policies without any coalition building, and even without building public consensus. On abortion, for example, no state is allowed to make abortion illegal before viability (20-24 weeks). This is enormously unpopular in the US (under 30% support). And presumably it's unpopular in Germany, where there is a 12-week limit absent special circumstances.
I'm just trying to paint for you a picture of why conservatives in the U.S. might be frustrated, by reference to how things are in Germany. Keep in mind, though, that Americans are much more conservative than Germans to begin with! Less than 10% of Germans pray daily. For Americans, it's 50%, similar to Turkey!
Germany obviously makes political concessions to Christians and social conservatives. There is (opt-out) religious education in schools, abortion is limited mainly to the first trimester, and there are things like waiting periods and counseling.
This is a really important point I'd appreciate your giving serious consideration to: How would CDU members feel, today, if the German Constitutional Court suddenly decided there could be no religious education in schools, that abortion had to be legal to 24 weeks, etc? How do you think people in Germany would have reacted to those things had they happened in the 1950s-1970s, like happened here?
Take it a step further. The year after Obergefell legalized same-sex marriage in the US, the ECHR ruled there was no right to same-sex marriage in the European Convention on Human Rights. How do you think CDU members would have taken having the ECHR impose that on Germany? How do you think Poland or Italy would have taken that? As I recall, by the time Germany legalized same-sex marriage in 2017, 80% of Germans already supported it. How do you think Germans would have felt had the EHCR legalized same-sex marriage in Germany back in the 2000s when under 50% of people supported it? (I think Americans are probably 10 years behind Germany on that issue.)
Heck, Angela Merkel voted against same-sex marriage in Germany after Trump ran on accepting it a year earlier. In the US that vote would have caused the press to go completely apoplectic.
Re: Agent fired from literary agency for using Parler and Gab
#460Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m old fashioned. I judge articles not on whether they are published by “an odd Christian sect”, but how accurate and well-sourced they are. But hey, I’m a Boomer.
Zero sources provided. There's a link that looks like it should go to the twitter post, but is a list of Newsweek stories about twitter. And the posts are apparently now private. So what did you judge this article on?