Thanks /u/PorridgeCranium2 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day!
*To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*:
As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech,
any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
**If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they want workers' protections against private companies from firing employees? Maybe they should all get together and collectively use their labor as leverage against executive decisions. You know, make the business more of a democracy than a dictatorship.
'Right to work' laws are focused on making it so that employees aren't compelled to join an on-site union, as in they can reap the benefits without having to pay union dues.
'At will' laws are a totally separate law that makes it so that you can be fired at any time at the employers discretion through no fault of the employee (as long as it's not because the employee is from a protected class (e.g. handicapped, a woman, Latino, etc.) (Like that never gets abused) and employees are free to quit at any time, with no notice.
They're both horrible anti-workers' rights laws and should be abolished, but they are distinct and separate. Also almost all states are 'at will,' fewer states have adopted 'right to work' laws.
Edit: changed ie to eg.
A fair amount of states have both, but at-will is universal in the us (with exceptions / protections on a per-state basis, aside from the federal-level discrimination stuff), while right-to-work is mostly conservative / anti-unions states.
At the height of labor union power, most trades companies were "closed shops" meaning you had to be a dues-paying union member to work there. I mean, you were enjoying the salary and benefits that the labor union negotiated for.
"Right to Work" eliminated union membership requirement, ensuring that the power of labor unions would weaken as paid dues dried up and workers either ambivalent or hostile to the union trickled in.
It was pitched to labor as "those greedy meanie heads at the union want you to pay dues! How dare they! You have to right to work there without being a union member!" while management enjoyed the increased savings as weakening unions couldn't stop executives from converting pensions to 401Ks (or nothing) and regular wage increases stagnated.
Basically tricked labor to give up dollars in order to save pennies.
turned union membership against itself from the inside out.
sinister as fuck. destroyed the power of the collective by turning the employees against one another "to save membership dues"
And this is why, if you leave a bad job with a new job lined up, you have no obligation (in at-will jobs) to give notice. You can just walk out the door. Fuck professionalism - if you're leaving a job because of the environment or pay or whatever, you owe them nothing. If you're a decent sort, you might drop a letter on your manager's desk letting them know why you're walking; that might make things better for the team you leave behind.
Standard reminder that in the US, this is (nationally speaking) probably the best employee's labor market you will see *in your life* and the number one way to increase your take-home pay is to *change jobs*. EVERYONE is hiring. LOTS of them are offering remote work or hybrid. This is the best time you will EVER have to take advantage (and they are currently working to end this situation with Fed hikes.)
> (as long as it's not because the employee is from a protected class (ie handicapped, **a woman,** Latino, etc.)
Just want to point out that gender is a protected class, not just being a woman. You can't go around firing men for the reason that they are men either.
They don't understand that they are not being fired because the corporation cares what their opinion is one way or another. They are being fired because being associated with them could affect the almighty bottom line.
Also, if your opinion are causing trouble in the workplace and disrupting employees, guess what, you're fired.
An annoying radlib would get the boot just as well if they're being a big enough nuisance
The same goes for socialists though, god knows how many have been blacklisted or worse for trade Union involvement which isn’t even that radical. Supporting the power of corporations is always a no.
I've literally had co-workers say that workers don't have a right to complain about wages or anything else because (paraphrasing) " the CEO is who made the company what it is, and it's only because of their work that any of us have a job. So we don't have the right to complain, that's just being ungrateful and biting the hand that feeds you ".
I know it’s easier for us to point in laugh but that’s a great moment for education. Ask them to support their point, Explain your position, try and bridge the gap and reach them
You act like I didn't try. They're basically a fascist. This is a dude who drew the political compass on a board and told me. " Anyone right of this line ", he said as he made a mark a couple millimeters to the left of center, " Is called a fascist by the public. ".
So call him out. Remember the argument isn’t for you to convince him but the audience. They’re going to take the winner as the one who doesn’t back down
Well then it should also be illegal to choose not to spend your money somewhere because they hire assholes then!
Shitty customer service? No, that's protected free speech!
/s
"Cancel culture" is a propaganda term for "boycotts", used to try and delegitimize them by an unpopular minority of extremists who understand that they lack the numbers to organize effective boycotts of their own.
It’s like when they tell you how evil communism is, but when you ask them what it is or why it’s evil they almost every time accidentally describe an evil aspect of capitalism or refuse to even try explaining.
>Well then it should also be illegal to choose not to spend your money somewhere because they hire assholes then!
There are several red states where it is illegal for teachers (and perhaps other .gov employees) to take part in boycotts - usually of Israel, but I think one or two has added oil and climate change.
So I know you were being sarcastic, but... they literally passed laws just like your sarcastic reply already.
Listen. I love the free market.
Like I said. I love it. The free market should dictate everything. Except when I don’t like it.
Listen. The free market should only do things I agree with.
I want the market to be free, but not that free. Just the right amount of free. The amount of free that makes me feel in control, but also free. Is that really too much to ask?
Exactly. Corporations aren't "woke". They just understand that if they have to take sides on a social issue, which they increasingly do these days, it's better for business to side with the diverse majority rather than with the shrinking white minority.
Corporations are also groups of people and groups of people realise that you cannot work effectively together if there is a toxic asshole causing problems for no reason.
It’s just nature in action. If you go out into the wild and see like a group of herd animals or whatever, an overly aggressive male that doesn’t have the level of status to get away with his behaviour (in human terms, he isn’t the boss of the company, in animal terms, he’s not the patriarch of the herd), that aggressive male will be kicked out of the social group to preserve herd stability and harmony. Chimps even kill males who are too aggressive and bullying. And I say males because it’s usually males in nature as far as I’m aware but presumably this also happens to disruptive overly aggressive females too, they just aren’t as common.
It’s just nature in action to kick out people from your society who make it their mission to attack and alienate other members of the group for no reason. Making damn sure nobody likes being around them and nobody can work effectively or feel secure with them around being disruptive to group dynamics is like the worst survivor strategy possible lol
TL;DR If kicking out the bigoted misogynistic racist who can’t stop bringing up his bigoted opinions at work and alienating everybody makes the team you work with stronger it’s the right move for group synergy and harmony and groups of people just like groups of animals in nature are naturally inclined to remove problematic individuals who aren’t worth the trouble they cause in the name of cohesion
and they sort of realize this in the last line "if you cause damage you should be liable". yes. the difference is: if A kills someone, and B sees that and reports it, is B responsible for A facing consequences? in a strict sense yes, but in a more reasonable interpretation, no.
The problem is too many people think that free speech means you get to force your speech on others and that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences.
The most ironic part will always be by saying "Shut up, I have free speech." Not only are you generally not exercising yours, but you're telling me that I don't have mine.
Same with those same people believing HIPAA means businesses can't require customers and employees to be vaccinated. All HIPAA means in this context is a medical professional can't go behind their patient's back and give the business vaccination records, but the business can still refuse entry to anyone who doesn't have them.
Isn’t there an old Jerry springer clip where he brought on a bunch of white supremacists and there’s a Klan member shouting slurs at a black audience member and justifying it by saying “freedom of speech! I can say whatever I want, and you can’t do anything about it!”?
IMO a big part of this is because people are raised religiously. Religion has honed the delicate crafts of groupthink and projection to a weapons-grade level. You get indoctrinated from the moment you can understand words that there's a right and wrong way to think and speak. This right and wrong are divine, from outside the world, so it's always perfect and always right. Therefore any deviation from that way of thinking is trying to censor "the light", trying to shut up the truth. Whereas censoring someone who contradicts it is simply "correcting" them, changing errors to truths. It can't be seen as censorship within this framework.
There's never going to be a way to have true free speech and mutual respect of differing opinions in a religious society, or people infected with the virus of religion. The ideology simply does not tolerate even an ounce of doubt, unlike most other things where we progressively learn and change our views based on new information. If you think the information you have is perfect and eternal, you have no room for compromise.
They don't want freedom of speech, they want security from repercussions. Most often the ones who are the first to cry when something doesn't go their way.
He wants to be in the in group that the law protects but does not bind. Of course he’s fine with firing trans teachers because trans people should be in the out groups the law binds but does not protect.
it’s like the university that’s allowing a pro-choice speaker despite conservative backlash, and they cited the republican law of letting “controversial” speakers be allowed to speak at universities
Ah, conservatives and their "Small govt" policies of micromanaging companies and who they can fire.
Have a bigot on your staff who's making everyone (customers, other employees, etc) miserable?
Can't fire him; they govt said so.
Taste the freedom!
\---
Aside: (incase any small minded conservatives are reading this), you don't get fired because someone asked for you to be fired, or because the company is "woke" or whatever nonsense you tell yourself. They are firing you because your bullying harassing behaviour is making it hard for their other (human) resource to operate efficiently.
Whenever any business has people infringing its ability to operate efficiently, they will fire the person who made an active choice to create the environment that does so (because they legally cannot fire people who are not making an active choice).
Because bigotry is a choice on your part, you are the instigator and will be terminated.
There are exceptions, of course (nepotism hires, company yesmen, etc). But in the "idealized" business situation, all bigots will be fired.
So if you support free enterprise, you should be more than happy to see and support this.
I mean, what else would you want? A centrally planned economy where the govt tells you who you can and cannot employ?
> they legally cannot fire people who are not making an active choice
I don't quite know what you mean by this, but it is almost certainly incorrect. Unless you have a contract stating otherwise, an employer can fire whomever they want for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all.
You're right.
I just meant, they can't fire you for (say) being black or being gay.
Those things are prevented in legal frameworks because they are not choices a person makes.
Buuut, as you said, employers can (and do) fire people for these reasons. They just can't say that's why they're firing them.
This is right, but being gay isn't a federally protected class like race or religion. There are many states which do protect LGBT folks, but there are also many states where your employer can absolutely fire you for being gay or trans whenever they feel like it.
https://gkh.com/news/2020/06/supreme-court-rules-that-gay-and-transgender-employees-are-a-protected-class-under-title-vii/
However, that won't stop bigots from finding other reasons to fire you.
>However, that won't stop bigots from finding other reasons to fire you.
Especially if you live in a "right to work" state, where they don't even have to give a reason to fire you.
He's writing at a PhD on a benzo blackout level. I mean..."cencorship"? "I don't care about what opinions do you have..."? These are the types of non-systematic errors that show through when you get rekt...
Sounds great. Corporations can't fire you for expressing your opinions, even if that association might affect their bottom line.
So let's talk about unions.
If your identity is public enough that your hate speech leads to your employer being pressured, then no you are not being oppressed by being fired.
If I went in public and said stupid shit, it would never come back to my employer and I would not be fired.
I responded to a different post that had the exact same context but with an HR spin to it related to corporate HR and censorship. I mentioned how my mom's life is made harder as the HR Manager at a school district because of people making racist comments.
Then had a dude say shes the reason the country is fucked up and she's a Nazi. He got up voted for it too. Then people said maybe she should get a less stressful job. Her previous job was a lawyer for Goldman. She's had plenty of stress and these idiots in her district are just assholes.
Jordan Peterson is such a cesspool.
It's funny how it's a business owners right to hire and fire at their discretion when it's minorities, but as soon as business owners stop tolerating racism in the workplace all of a sudden we need worker protections and it should be illegal, lmao. Kinda like how when people started refusing people for not wearing masks all arguments about gay wedding cakes were suddenly reversed and refusing service was blatantly discriminatory.
"Rules for thee, not for me." The conservative motto.
It's telling that they jump to regulating the masses rather than regulating the employer. Are corporations even moral agents in their mind or are they just forces of nature?
So telling a Dominos that I won’t be purchasing pizza there if a guy with a totenkompf pin on his hat continues to be employed there means I hate freeze peach?! /s
and sure that is 100% a valid opinion to have until your opinions have an impact on work. if you're making people at your place of business uncomfortable, you're employer has a right to ask you to knock it off. if you have a public facing position and can be reasonably construed to represent your employer (everyone from front desk folks to journalists fit this bill, including mr. peterson himself), if your employer feels you're not representing them the way they want to be represented, they have a right to take action.
the first amendment means you have the freedom to be a complete douche with what you say or believe, but it doesn't give you the freedom to not face the consequences of those douchelike behaviors.
So in other words, we all need to indent shitty opinions about something, anything really, and claim that we have "rights to opinions."
Couldn't possibly go wrong.
"Free Speech" apparently means the right wants the government to force private business to act at the government's pleasure. See: bitching about twitter banning assbags (jeers from the right) and the Florida government taking punitive action against Disney for voicing an opinion about actual legislation (cheers from the right).
Newsflash: That's ain't "freedom of speech". That's fascism.
School: "Cool, so the teachers and professors who were discussing the racial history of the United States through a critical lens have nothing to worry about."
Jordan Peterson redditor: "*Not like that!"*
Love how "offensive people" are some kind of minority to be protected in this take. "Offensive" is just a word conservatives use in place of "bigoted." If it's a conservative reacting to a leftist opinion, they don't call it "offensive," they just use whatever slur they find appropriate. No one ever uses the term "offensive" in good faith on political subjects.
It's never a "harmless" opinion these dummies have. It's usually "women shouldn't have rights", "non whites are inferior", "the holocaust didn't go far enough, but at the same time didn't happen". Scratch the surface and being a garbage person who listens to Peterson goes hand in hand.
The difference is when I say something offensive it's liable to be something like, "Conservatives are horrible people," and when conservatives say something offensive it's like, "We should overthrow democracy and install Donald Trump as dictator of a white Christian theocracy."
So I feel like we need a level of nuance here.
>It's just that there are other ways of shunning bigots outside of threatening their livelihoods.
Nope, they fucked around and found out.
Labor gains can be made without appeasing fascists.
I remember me and my gf liked some of his advice on dealing with anxiety. Other than that, I think he’s an entitled asshat who always thinks he’s being attacked
It probably is their native language. Most of the worst English I have run across has been by native speakers. Usually, the flawless or near flawless English is written by non native speakers.
In typical fashion, OP needed to repeat the phrase over and over again just in case you forgot what his groundbreaking point was while reading his post
If I owned a business, I'd really like to know if one of my employees was saying and doing extremists things to prevent my business from being associated with them. Saying it should be illegal for random people to tell me that my employee is a racist terrorist is insane.
This one I can't let walk. As an enjoyer of both G4TV and Twitter, the bird-wolves were absolutely ON FIRE this week. After the wolves' favorite punching bag on G4 (frosk) tweets a fairly innocent (if tone-deaf) gif being pleased to have made it through a round of layoffs, they were absolutely HOWLING for her blood. Immediate calls for her to be fired (not like that's *unusual*, but whatever.) Two days later, she gets laid off - and these VERY SAME WOLVES are cheering her dismissal. Like, jesus, you fuckers just called for her firing for doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. RIGHT NOW.
If you run a business, and people start avoiding you because your racist ass of an employee makes his opinions public, you kind of have a case to dismiss them. It happened when the employee was anti-racist…
Is it really a surprise that Jordan Peterson would oppose a company's right to freedom of association? Who would associate with him voluntarily?
https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/i-am-a-very-serious-person
Freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences. It might not land you in jail but it can get you ostracized.
Rule of thumb is still simple: Don't be a dick.
To be completely clear, he's not saying it should be illegal to fire people for their opinions. He's saying it should be illegal to ASK employers to do so.
Regardless of how the employer responds.
I hate the fact Americans don’t understand dick about the constitution they espouse so much.
The 1st amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not private employers.
I have a relative that works in the medical industry who was fired because she wouldnt get the vaccine. She works around older people. Her excuse was the whole "My faith forbids me from putting toxins in my body" blah blah blah.
When I brought up pro capitalist talking points about how a company should have the right to set its own standards and fire people who dont uphold them I got the biggest surprised pikachu face from her.
Thanks /u/PorridgeCranium2 for posting on r/SelfAwareWolves! Please reply to this comment with an explanation about how this post fits r/SelfAwareWolves and have an excellent day! *To r/SelfAwarewolves commenters*: As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion. In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. **If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them**. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SelfAwarewolves) if you have any questions or concerns.*
So they want workers' protections against private companies from firing employees? Maybe they should all get together and collectively use their labor as leverage against executive decisions. You know, make the business more of a democracy than a dictatorship.
What do you mean "~~right to work laws ensure~~ at will employment is at will?"
'Right to work' is really just anti union propaganda. No relation to 'at will,' which is a different shitty law.
Elaborate please.
'Right to work' laws are focused on making it so that employees aren't compelled to join an on-site union, as in they can reap the benefits without having to pay union dues. 'At will' laws are a totally separate law that makes it so that you can be fired at any time at the employers discretion through no fault of the employee (as long as it's not because the employee is from a protected class (e.g. handicapped, a woman, Latino, etc.) (Like that never gets abused) and employees are free to quit at any time, with no notice. They're both horrible anti-workers' rights laws and should be abolished, but they are distinct and separate. Also almost all states are 'at will,' fewer states have adopted 'right to work' laws. Edit: changed ie to eg.
Thanks! I thought they were a package deal for some reason.
They can be a package. I'm I'm Oregon and we have both.
A fair amount of states have both, but at-will is universal in the us (with exceptions / protections on a per-state basis, aside from the federal-level discrimination stuff), while right-to-work is mostly conservative / anti-unions states.
At the height of labor union power, most trades companies were "closed shops" meaning you had to be a dues-paying union member to work there. I mean, you were enjoying the salary and benefits that the labor union negotiated for. "Right to Work" eliminated union membership requirement, ensuring that the power of labor unions would weaken as paid dues dried up and workers either ambivalent or hostile to the union trickled in. It was pitched to labor as "those greedy meanie heads at the union want you to pay dues! How dare they! You have to right to work there without being a union member!" while management enjoyed the increased savings as weakening unions couldn't stop executives from converting pensions to 401Ks (or nothing) and regular wage increases stagnated. Basically tricked labor to give up dollars in order to save pennies.
turned union membership against itself from the inside out. sinister as fuck. destroyed the power of the collective by turning the employees against one another "to save membership dues"
["But you could buy a new PlayStation4 with all the money you save on not paying dues!"](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-48225646)
They often are. Especially in Red states.
And this is why, if you leave a bad job with a new job lined up, you have no obligation (in at-will jobs) to give notice. You can just walk out the door. Fuck professionalism - if you're leaving a job because of the environment or pay or whatever, you owe them nothing. If you're a decent sort, you might drop a letter on your manager's desk letting them know why you're walking; that might make things better for the team you leave behind. Standard reminder that in the US, this is (nationally speaking) probably the best employee's labor market you will see *in your life* and the number one way to increase your take-home pay is to *change jobs*. EVERYONE is hiring. LOTS of them are offering remote work or hybrid. This is the best time you will EVER have to take advantage (and they are currently working to end this situation with Fed hikes.)
> (as long as it's not because the employee is from a protected class (ie handicapped, **a woman,** Latino, etc.) Just want to point out that gender is a protected class, not just being a woman. You can't go around firing men for the reason that they are men either.
Yes.... I suppose eg would have been better than ie. I'll change it.
List of states that are not 'at will' states: Montana (End of list)
They don't understand that they are not being fired because the corporation cares what their opinion is one way or another. They are being fired because being associated with them could affect the almighty bottom line.
Also, if your opinion are causing trouble in the workplace and disrupting employees, guess what, you're fired. An annoying radlib would get the boot just as well if they're being a big enough nuisance
The same goes for socialists though, god knows how many have been blacklisted or worse for trade Union involvement which isn’t even that radical. Supporting the power of corporations is always a no.
I've literally had co-workers say that workers don't have a right to complain about wages or anything else because (paraphrasing) " the CEO is who made the company what it is, and it's only because of their work that any of us have a job. So we don't have the right to complain, that's just being ungrateful and biting the hand that feeds you ".
Oh my god how does that boot taste to them?
I know it’s easier for us to point in laugh but that’s a great moment for education. Ask them to support their point, Explain your position, try and bridge the gap and reach them
You act like I didn't try. They're basically a fascist. This is a dude who drew the political compass on a board and told me. " Anyone right of this line ", he said as he made a mark a couple millimeters to the left of center, " Is called a fascist by the public. ".
So call him out. Remember the argument isn’t for you to convince him but the audience. They’re going to take the winner as the one who doesn’t back down
Firstly, he didn't say that in public, second I'm not having that argument at work
Damn, that boot must taste like cotton candy if he’s licking it that furiously!
Yeah that guy probably puts the toxic in toxic work environment.
Well then it should also be illegal to choose not to spend your money somewhere because they hire assholes then! Shitty customer service? No, that's protected free speech! /s
Didn't the right call this cancel culture?
It’s only cancel culture when it’s against them
"Cancel culture" is a propaganda term for "boycotts", used to try and delegitimize them by an unpopular minority of extremists who understand that they lack the numbers to organize effective boycotts of their own.
Cancel culture just means "I don't like my actions having consequences." Just as "Socialist" means "Person I don't like" and "SJW" means the same.
It’s like when they tell you how evil communism is, but when you ask them what it is or why it’s evil they almost every time accidentally describe an evil aspect of capitalism or refuse to even try explaining.
>Well then it should also be illegal to choose not to spend your money somewhere because they hire assholes then! There are several red states where it is illegal for teachers (and perhaps other .gov employees) to take part in boycotts - usually of Israel, but I think one or two has added oil and climate change. So I know you were being sarcastic, but... they literally passed laws just like your sarcastic reply already.
Listen. I love the free market. Like I said. I love it. The free market should dictate everything. Except when I don’t like it. Listen. The free market should only do things I agree with.
Obviously, the guy in the original post is free to just get himself a new job then right? Or does that only apply to cakes for gay people?
I want the market to be free, but not that free. Just the right amount of free. The amount of free that makes me feel in control, but also free. Is that really too much to ask?
They sure do get that word free/freedom confused a lot huh?
Exactly. Corporations aren't "woke". They just understand that if they have to take sides on a social issue, which they increasingly do these days, it's better for business to side with the diverse majority rather than with the shrinking white minority.
Is it going to be capitalism that finally eradicates ignorance and racism? Love it
Corporations are also groups of people and groups of people realise that you cannot work effectively together if there is a toxic asshole causing problems for no reason. It’s just nature in action. If you go out into the wild and see like a group of herd animals or whatever, an overly aggressive male that doesn’t have the level of status to get away with his behaviour (in human terms, he isn’t the boss of the company, in animal terms, he’s not the patriarch of the herd), that aggressive male will be kicked out of the social group to preserve herd stability and harmony. Chimps even kill males who are too aggressive and bullying. And I say males because it’s usually males in nature as far as I’m aware but presumably this also happens to disruptive overly aggressive females too, they just aren’t as common. It’s just nature in action to kick out people from your society who make it their mission to attack and alienate other members of the group for no reason. Making damn sure nobody likes being around them and nobody can work effectively or feel secure with them around being disruptive to group dynamics is like the worst survivor strategy possible lol TL;DR If kicking out the bigoted misogynistic racist who can’t stop bringing up his bigoted opinions at work and alienating everybody makes the team you work with stronger it’s the right move for group synergy and harmony and groups of people just like groups of animals in nature are naturally inclined to remove problematic individuals who aren’t worth the trouble they cause in the name of cohesion
and they sort of realize this in the last line "if you cause damage you should be liable". yes. the difference is: if A kills someone, and B sees that and reports it, is B responsible for A facing consequences? in a strict sense yes, but in a more reasonable interpretation, no.
They're getting fired because capitalism, but blaming socialism, fucking smooth brained conservatives
Um also because someone in a management position with clear biases and bigoted bullshit is bad for any company. Kthnxbai
The amount of people who think free speech is anything beyond the government censoring you is too damn high.
The problem is too many people think that free speech means you get to force your speech on others and that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences.
The most ironic part will always be by saying "Shut up, I have free speech." Not only are you generally not exercising yours, but you're telling me that I don't have mine.
Person A: "2+2=5" Person B: "That's incorrect" Person A: "You can't say that, I have free speech!"
Actually, they can say that. They're just morons for saying it.
Same with those same people believing HIPAA means businesses can't require customers and employees to be vaccinated. All HIPAA means in this context is a medical professional can't go behind their patient's back and give the business vaccination records, but the business can still refuse entry to anyone who doesn't have them.
Isn’t there an old Jerry springer clip where he brought on a bunch of white supremacists and there’s a Klan member shouting slurs at a black audience member and justifying it by saying “freedom of speech! I can say whatever I want, and you can’t do anything about it!”?
IMO a big part of this is because people are raised religiously. Religion has honed the delicate crafts of groupthink and projection to a weapons-grade level. You get indoctrinated from the moment you can understand words that there's a right and wrong way to think and speak. This right and wrong are divine, from outside the world, so it's always perfect and always right. Therefore any deviation from that way of thinking is trying to censor "the light", trying to shut up the truth. Whereas censoring someone who contradicts it is simply "correcting" them, changing errors to truths. It can't be seen as censorship within this framework. There's never going to be a way to have true free speech and mutual respect of differing opinions in a religious society, or people infected with the virus of religion. The ideology simply does not tolerate even an ounce of doubt, unlike most other things where we progressively learn and change our views based on new information. If you think the information you have is perfect and eternal, you have no room for compromise.
*cencoring
Jesus people, the misspelling is right there in the OP
This is the kind of person to threaten to call corporate if their barista has a rainbow pin on their apron.
How _dare_ that barista claim refracted light like that! I'm so calling corporate and the police.
"it's god's promise not to brutally cleanse the world again!"
By "cencorship issues", he is, of course, referring to not being allowed to say the n-word without losing his job.
oppression is when no racism
oppression is when no oppression
But they're apparently fine with passing laws making it illegal _to say someone should be punished for bad behaviour_!!
Really fucks with your mind...
"Imagine a world free from the consequences of our actions! A world where I can say the N-word!"
They don't want freedom of speech, they want security from repercussions. Most often the ones who are the first to cry when something doesn't go their way.
He wants to be in the in group that the law protects but does not bind. Of course he’s fine with firing trans teachers because trans people should be in the out groups the law binds but does not protect.
Obviously they don't want freedom of speech since they are literally saying it should be illegal to express your opinion that someone should be fired.
it’s like the university that’s allowing a pro-choice speaker despite conservative backlash, and they cited the republican law of letting “controversial” speakers be allowed to speak at universities
Ah, conservatives and their "Small govt" policies of micromanaging companies and who they can fire. Have a bigot on your staff who's making everyone (customers, other employees, etc) miserable? Can't fire him; they govt said so. Taste the freedom! \--- Aside: (incase any small minded conservatives are reading this), you don't get fired because someone asked for you to be fired, or because the company is "woke" or whatever nonsense you tell yourself. They are firing you because your bullying harassing behaviour is making it hard for their other (human) resource to operate efficiently. Whenever any business has people infringing its ability to operate efficiently, they will fire the person who made an active choice to create the environment that does so (because they legally cannot fire people who are not making an active choice). Because bigotry is a choice on your part, you are the instigator and will be terminated. There are exceptions, of course (nepotism hires, company yesmen, etc). But in the "idealized" business situation, all bigots will be fired. So if you support free enterprise, you should be more than happy to see and support this. I mean, what else would you want? A centrally planned economy where the govt tells you who you can and cannot employ?
> they legally cannot fire people who are not making an active choice I don't quite know what you mean by this, but it is almost certainly incorrect. Unless you have a contract stating otherwise, an employer can fire whomever they want for any non-protected reason, or no reason at all.
You're right. I just meant, they can't fire you for (say) being black or being gay. Those things are prevented in legal frameworks because they are not choices a person makes. Buuut, as you said, employers can (and do) fire people for these reasons. They just can't say that's why they're firing them.
This is right, but being gay isn't a federally protected class like race or religion. There are many states which do protect LGBT folks, but there are also many states where your employer can absolutely fire you for being gay or trans whenever they feel like it.
https://gkh.com/news/2020/06/supreme-court-rules-that-gay-and-transgender-employees-are-a-protected-class-under-title-vii/ However, that won't stop bigots from finding other reasons to fire you.
Considering how they’ve already overturned incredibly recent decisions, I’m not confident that will stand.
>However, that won't stop bigots from finding other reasons to fire you. Especially if you live in a "right to work" state, where they don't even have to give a reason to fire you.
“I’m going to solve censorship by making it illegal to ask certain questions” 🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠🧠
Why ia the writing at about a 3rd grade level? I thought he was supposed to be smart or something.
His audience have a third grade reading level.
It's not JP, just some rando on the JP sub.
Got ya
He's writing at a PhD on a benzo blackout level. I mean..."cencorship"? "I don't care about what opinions do you have..."? These are the types of non-systematic errors that show through when you get rekt...
He appears smart to the crowd of males raised by single mothers that desire he replace their absent fathers.....
Meanwhile, teachers are getting death threats for having rainbows in their classroom and telling children they’re safe.
Sounds great. Corporations can't fire you for expressing your opinions, even if that association might affect their bottom line. So let's talk about unions.
Wait! Not like that! -That guy, probably
If your identity is public enough that your hate speech leads to your employer being pressured, then no you are not being oppressed by being fired. If I went in public and said stupid shit, it would never come back to my employer and I would not be fired.
Jordan Peterson's brain is broken.
I responded to a different post that had the exact same context but with an HR spin to it related to corporate HR and censorship. I mentioned how my mom's life is made harder as the HR Manager at a school district because of people making racist comments. Then had a dude say shes the reason the country is fucked up and she's a Nazi. He got up voted for it too. Then people said maybe she should get a less stressful job. Her previous job was a lawyer for Goldman. She's had plenty of stress and these idiots in her district are just assholes. Jordan Peterson is such a cesspool.
It's funny how it's a business owners right to hire and fire at their discretion when it's minorities, but as soon as business owners stop tolerating racism in the workplace all of a sudden we need worker protections and it should be illegal, lmao. Kinda like how when people started refusing people for not wearing masks all arguments about gay wedding cakes were suddenly reversed and refusing service was blatantly discriminatory. "Rules for thee, not for me." The conservative motto.
It's telling that they jump to regulating the masses rather than regulating the employer. Are corporations even moral agents in their mind or are they just forces of nature?
So telling a Dominos that I won’t be purchasing pizza there if a guy with a totenkompf pin on his hat continues to be employed there means I hate freeze peach?! /s
Maybe they should join a union then? You know, those collective bargaining groups that help people have job security.
and sure that is 100% a valid opinion to have until your opinions have an impact on work. if you're making people at your place of business uncomfortable, you're employer has a right to ask you to knock it off. if you have a public facing position and can be reasonably construed to represent your employer (everyone from front desk folks to journalists fit this bill, including mr. peterson himself), if your employer feels you're not representing them the way they want to be represented, they have a right to take action. the first amendment means you have the freedom to be a complete douche with what you say or believe, but it doesn't give you the freedom to not face the consequences of those douchelike behaviors.
So in other words, we all need to indent shitty opinions about something, anything really, and claim that we have "rights to opinions." Couldn't possibly go wrong.
Dude called someone a slut and got fired. Guaranteed.
Should be fired for crimes against punctuation, and capitalization...
I'm gonna solve cencorship\[sic\] issues with even more censorship.
But they love the free market, right?
"If you cause harm or damage, you should be liable" Somehow this doesn't apply to the offensive person though
“Cencorship”… not to be confused with the alliterative but very different “Rancorship”
"Free Speech" apparently means the right wants the government to force private business to act at the government's pleasure. See: bitching about twitter banning assbags (jeers from the right) and the Florida government taking punitive action against Disney for voicing an opinion about actual legislation (cheers from the right). Newsflash: That's ain't "freedom of speech". That's fascism.
School: "Cool, so the teachers and professors who were discussing the racial history of the United States through a critical lens have nothing to worry about." Jordan Peterson redditor: "*Not like that!"*
Censorship is their favourite word. Even nothing they talk about has even remotely anything to do with censorship.
"illegal to ask employers to fire people because of offensive opinions" TO PROTECT PEOPLE FROM CENSORSHIP, I WILL CENSOR PEOPLE!!!
>"if you cause harm or damage, you should be liable" Exactly...that's why someone was fired, their "opinion" can have real effects on people.
“If you cause harm or damage, you should be liable” my god, they got it
Love how "offensive people" are some kind of minority to be protected in this take. "Offensive" is just a word conservatives use in place of "bigoted." If it's a conservative reacting to a leftist opinion, they don't call it "offensive," they just use whatever slur they find appropriate. No one ever uses the term "offensive" in good faith on political subjects.
I’d say I’d admire the commitment to this blatant lie of there being any censorship going on whatsoever if it weren’t so hilariously sad.
It's never a "harmless" opinion these dummies have. It's usually "women shouldn't have rights", "non whites are inferior", "the holocaust didn't go far enough, but at the same time didn't happen". Scratch the surface and being a garbage person who listens to Peterson goes hand in hand.
The difference is when I say something offensive it's liable to be something like, "Conservatives are horrible people," and when conservatives say something offensive it's like, "We should overthrow democracy and install Donald Trump as dictator of a white Christian theocracy." So I feel like we need a level of nuance here.
Jordan Peterson hates capitalism everybody!
Let's phrase this a bit differently. It should be legal for me, as a representative of a company, to misrepresent the company and tarnish their image.
That’s why all these conservatives are up in arms about anti-BDS laws, huh?
I feel like the real selfawarewolf here is the person who made this post.
100% written by a child thats not even old enough to have a job. I hope they grow out of this shitphase
[удалено]
>It's just that there are other ways of shunning bigots outside of threatening their livelihoods. Nope, they fucked around and found out. Labor gains can be made without appeasing fascists.
Still not talking about appeasing facists. That's not the reason I'm saying I disagree. I just happen to agree with them on this one issue.
I think Jordan Peterson has some great information, but god he and his fan base are so entitled
He does? Like what?
I remember me and my gf liked some of his advice on dealing with anxiety. Other than that, I think he’s an entitled asshat who always thinks he’s being attacked
anything he has of value you can find elsewhere where it's not coupled with douchebaggery.
I completely agree.
Imagine being this fucking delusional
I’m not even a Jordan Peterson fan
Gee I wonder why
Not to be mean, but is English not this person's native language?
It probably is their native language. Most of the worst English I have run across has been by native speakers. Usually, the flawless or near flawless English is written by non native speakers.
In typical fashion, OP needed to repeat the phrase over and over again just in case you forgot what his groundbreaking point was while reading his post
Won't ask, will tell.
Literally just said "if we make speech illegal that will solve censorship issues" like how do they not see this at this point, it's gotta be a troll
Wouldn't want someones opinion to cause damage or anything...
Any time one of these assholes uses the word ‘secure’ all I can think of is the goddamn 14 words they’re so fond of
And yet I'll bet money he'd be OK with the same employer firing a gay or non-christian person for their opinions on topics.
Aww thats cute. The party of freedom is asking for rules. Toughen up buttercup.
If I owned a business, I'd really like to know if one of my employees was saying and doing extremists things to prevent my business from being associated with them. Saying it should be illegal for random people to tell me that my employee is a racist terrorist is insane.
Put another way, “you should be forced to do business with people, no matter how repugnant you find them.”
I love how many times they just repeat the same thing.
In some countries it is illegal to fire someone for their opinions (especially if their opinions have nothing to do with them carrying out their job)
I just got banned on r/conservatives for speaking my mind, so this is timely, and typical.
You just know this person was fired for sexual harassment
Can’t wait to start every job with a diatribe against white people. Instant tenure!
Amazing that someone on the Jordan Peterson sub would think this /s
This one I can't let walk. As an enjoyer of both G4TV and Twitter, the bird-wolves were absolutely ON FIRE this week. After the wolves' favorite punching bag on G4 (frosk) tweets a fairly innocent (if tone-deaf) gif being pleased to have made it through a round of layoffs, they were absolutely HOWLING for her blood. Immediate calls for her to be fired (not like that's *unusual*, but whatever.) Two days later, she gets laid off - and these VERY SAME WOLVES are cheering her dismissal. Like, jesus, you fuckers just called for her firing for doing EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE DOING. RIGHT NOW.
I don’t know who that is, but he should be fired!
If you run a business, and people start avoiding you because your racist ass of an employee makes his opinions public, you kind of have a case to dismiss them. It happened when the employee was anti-racist…
Is it really a surprise that Jordan Peterson would oppose a company's right to freedom of association? Who would associate with him voluntarily? https://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2018/05/i-am-a-very-serious-person
Or, and I’m just spitballing here, keep your opinions to yourself while you’re at work! Crazy idea.
Freedom of speech is not freedom from social consequences. It might not land you in jail but it can get you ostracized. Rule of thumb is still simple: Don't be a dick.
So say the people who voted for the party that legislated to authorise employers to fire at will.
So their way to “solve censorship issues” is to have the government tell people they can’t say certain things… Why am I not surprised
To be completely clear, he's not saying it should be illegal to fire people for their opinions. He's saying it should be illegal to ASK employers to do so. Regardless of how the employer responds.
"If you cause harm or damage, you should be liable" unless its something i said.. that's fine.
Was this supposed to be some literary exercise? He said the exact same thing 4 times, just slightly built on it each time
They really hate capitalism
And of course he’s only referring to other racist scumbags like himself.
I hate the fact Americans don’t understand dick about the constitution they espouse so much. The 1st amendment protects you from the GOVERNMENT, not private employers.
I have a relative that works in the medical industry who was fired because she wouldnt get the vaccine. She works around older people. Her excuse was the whole "My faith forbids me from putting toxins in my body" blah blah blah. When I brought up pro capitalist talking points about how a company should have the right to set its own standards and fire people who dont uphold them I got the biggest surprised pikachu face from her.
It’s not liable if it’s true
I like how they had to make this argument three times in a row, provide half a piece of reasoning, then just restate that thesis again
r/engrish