i am well aware of that. I don’t care. Toward the end of my career if I was given a task that I felt to be dishonorable, I would just refuse. And that was that. Most times, I could convince people that my refusal more likely to obtain the best possible result. And it was true. And that often is true. I just don’t buy into the argument that we have to behave like jackasses to get the best possible result.
1 Like
I have to say I disagree, too. It’s one thing for a private employer to elect to fire an employee for perverse speech, and we can choose to do or not do business with that employer. It’s another thing when those people are in the employ of government and financed by our tax dollars. We can’t choose to not do business with the IRS or our military or a huge percentage of the teachers and doctors getting salaries or government reimbursements.
1 Like
Well, are you saying that you want the government to tell us what we can and cannot say?
No, but I am saying that there should be some accountability when people are using our tax dollars. You can’t just spout murderous things.
There are quite a few kinds of open discourse I don’t need and would not promote, legal or not. Let’s say someone I’ve hired is noisily delighted because a hated neighbor suffered an armed robbery, or had their home burned down, or shows happiness that someone they don’t like was raped.
Why on earth would I want that level of social ignorance and simple foulness in my organization? How is that going to be good for my other employees or my customers?
But we are talking about an actual murder here, of a speaker at a public event.
Never-mind if it is or isn’t legal to publicly rejoice in an assassination. It’s just fully antisocial. I don’t think anybody needs to apologize for wanting to push that out of their places of employment if they can.
People can say what they want, with some limits (free speech). People can fire whom they please, with some limits. Let’s see how it comes out in the wash.
Susan
3 Likes
That’s true. I wouldn’t want people around like that either. But it’s a different story when you’re talking about something that’s a matter of public interest. In that circumstance, I’m very much in favor of open and full discourse.
1 Like
I think that I understand, @acorn-endeavors. In a public forum maintained by tax dollars, it seems like a very good idea to not allow the words of one faction to be posted. Or maybe to have a discussion board where multiple sides can each post their statements. And the park officials to referee the board.
A FB friend gave the example of a national park as not permitting her to put up her race based poster. I can understand that, too.
2 Likes
That is precisely the logic the DEI, ESG, LGBTQ corporate officers use - and their incentives are protected by Too Big To Fail banks, who are in turn protected by the Federal Reserve. So, while you were doing what you think is Right ™, profits be damned; these folks are doing what they are told is Right, and their credit limits are increased!
1 Like
Larry Ellison’s kid buys another company like Elon Musk(who still had to collect investor group and take huge loan from bank against stocks for Twitter)… is just bad look for nepo elite. This kind of development isnt good. Was it like this family centralized in Rockefeller era 1800s and prior WW2?
Regular rich folks go to NYC shopping spree (mrs Zelenskyi or mrs Trump I think), these kids buy whole companies in spree.
1 Like
There’s been some good discussion on here about free speech vs ongoing employment.
Free speech is cool, but when your social media posts bring (or threaten to) your employer or their company into disrepute, then your employer has a right (and an obligation) to terminate your employment.
This is a common clause in employment contracts here in Sunny New Zealand.
3 Likes
I’m particularly sensitive to the government involvement right now. Our governor has recently “redirected” state tax funds to pay planned parenthood and to keep in operation abortion centers at the borders of our state. My understanding is the cartels use these state-financed abortion centers to “take care of” problems with their sex-trafficked girls.
Then, the gov decided to declare free childcare for everyone, paid for with tax dollars. Now, if someone can’t afford childcare and must work, I get that, but free childcare for EVERYONE in the state? Our taxes are going to go through the roof!
2 Likes
Deleted
Hmmm. It’s certainly A-OK for us to see this differently. I will remain interested in your input here.
To be clear, I’m not addressing the discourse exactly, but rather the natural consequences of choosing ugly (sometimes threatening) discourse. I didn’t say people spouting hateful things should be arrested or silenced, but that nobody is obliged keep them in their employ.
I would avoid businesses that tolerate some of what I’ve seen online (and I’ve mostly avoided it). Their employees can think and say what they want, and I can go somewhere else. Business owners have a choice to make.
If someone is making threats, then it’s a legal matter.
Regards,
Susan
4 Likes
In 6 years, MI gov has exploded expenditures by 40%
.
NM needs to fix their roads. Even repaved sections of I-40 are horrible. I was shocked at how run down Santa Rosa is. Literally 50% empty buildings.
1 Like
Wut? So cartels by definition dont pay any taxes and other payments, but then also use public services to take care of their problems…
Tv series having criminal organization run private underground clinics is then fiction.
Corporations avoiding taxes is one thing, this is next level. This is how it often goes in reality however. Criminal mindset, outsource everything you can to society, as you are 1% gang or whatever thinking framework it is justifying that. Usually hospitals would inform gunshot wound to authorities right? But in human trafficking there is no such danger for criminals?
1 Like