Political Correctness next victim: Comedy. Towards a Orwellian nightmare?

[Humble Warrior]

So I work in an advertising agency - let's say my client is a major international bank. They do some bad . Funding mines that create environment disasters. Launder money to Iran. Shut down a load of small business accounts with 30 days notice. Let's say I go and I mouth off in public how bad my client is, and my employer finds out. I get fired as a consequence.

Has the employer acted reasonably? Yes.

Has my right to free speech been violated? No.

There's plenty of real life examples. Is a court official in the USA allowed to be homophobic? Yes. Is she allowed to refuse homosexual couples wedding licences? No. Is a British citizen free to be a member of the BNP? Yes. Is a British police officer free to be a member of the BNP? No.

Ok, so let me get this right. A person spoke up about something they saw as wrong and immoral and even illegal (which your example would be) and it`s ok to sack him for it rather than stop doing what they`re doing?

And you don`t think his free speech has been violated?

Do you even understand what you are saying?

Do I have to explain where your moral compass is wrong?

Reread what you wrote. Please reread it.

[Infidel144]

This is not professional behaviour. He's been suspended, with pay, for obvious reasons. His freedom of speech has not been violated, but every employer has the right to expect you to behave professionally and has the right to respond if you do not.

Is his employer a public (i.e State) university or private university?

[Incontinenta Buttox]

The regressives and their Islamist allies claim their latest victim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gymnastic...ing-to-mock-i/

Anybody else still confused as to why the far right is gaining ground?

[Humble Warrior]

The regressives and their Islamist allies claim their latest victim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gymnastic...ing-to-mock-i/

Anybody else still confused as to why the far right is gaining ground?

And Christianity is belittled, insulted and mocked every day, everywhere and nobody minds.

This is why well-meaning, decent people are hardening their hearts and moving away from the Left. It`s happening in both Europe and America and is taking place in Australia also.

But the sjws\feminists and the like are too busy persecuting decent people for having an opinion to notice.

[Basil II the B.S]

So there's zero evidence that he said anything racist or sexist? What a surprise.

[Incontinenta Buttox]

Even the apex of all PC regressive lunacy and nastiness - The Guardian has spoken out against this vindictive and cowardly ban.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...stics#comments

[Harith]

Ok, so let me get this right. A person spoke up about something they saw as wrong and immoral and even illegal (which your example would be) and it`s ok to sack him for it rather than stop doing what they`re doing?

Employers in the US have a lot of power.

And you don`t think his free speech has been violated?

You have an oddly French approach to employee rights for someone who bashes "the Left™" every other post. Of course he has the right to spew garbage whenever he likes and I'm yet to see him being locked up for doing it. However, the employer also has the right to throw him and his garbage out.

[Humble Warrior]

Employers in the US have a lot of power.

Still doesn`t make it right and if an employee knows what he`s doing he could cause such Employers huge embarrassment for their unethical ways.

You have an oddly French approach to employee rights for someone who bashes "the Left™" every other post. Of course he has the right to spew garbage whenever he likes and I'm yet to see him being locked up for doing it. However, the employer also has the right to throw him and his garbage out.

And you make the typical mistake of assuming I am polarised to one side regardless of the situation, like you. I am about Justice and what is right. Not social justice as that`s bs. There is justice, individual justice, justice. Social justice is NOT justice. So I will call out something that is unjust whether on the right, centre or left.

But back to the point: It is an attack on Free Speech by fear. No one is going to speak up if they know they could lose their entire livelihood. Only the very brave or those with tenure (as in Uni Professors) can risk speaking out without fear of being punished for their Free Speech.

[Harith]

But back to the point: It is an attack on Free Speech by fear. No one is going to speak up if they know they could lose their entire livelihood. Only the very brave or those with tenure (as in Uni Professors) can risk speaking out without fear of being punished for their Free Speech.

Right, but that's how society functions in general. There is always a risk assigned to every action/ speech you exercise. Had an action been taken that would've deprived him of his speech, then I would agree with you. This, however, is about an employer who doesn't want:

A) Headaches
B) Any kind of bad publicity
C) May just not agree with those statements
D) They used it as a scapegoat to get rid of him
E) All of the above

[Humble Warrior]

Right, but that's how society functions in general. There is always a risk assigned to every action/ speech you exercise. Had an action been taken that would've deprived him of his speech, then I would agree with you.

No you wouldn`t. And no, this is a different situation and is a sign of a far greater problem at Unis. The man`s going to find it harder to speak out without a job.

The man is speaking out against pc. A man should be free to do that without fear of losing his job, especially at a Uni which is a place of learning and ideas.

This, however, is about an employer who doesn't want:
A) Headaches
B) Any kind of bad publicity
C) May just not agree with those statements
D) They used it as a scapegoat to get rid of him
E) All of the above

You honestly believe that each of those excuses are reasons to deprive a man of his livelihood for speaking out against pc today? Are not places of learning supposed to stand for higher ideals than this?

So it`s ok to to have your freedom of speech as long as it suits only certain people?

[Harith]

The man`s going to find it harder to speak out without a job.

Probably should've kept his mouth shut then.

The man is speaking out against pc. A man should be free to do that without fear of losing his job, especially at a Uni which is a place of learning and ideas.

Idealism aside, he spoke his mind and the administration (or whoever made the call) didn't like it. He is speaking his mind, not embarking on revolutionary thinking or putting some serious work apart from snarky twitter comments.

You would think as a professor he would do better than the average twitter troll .

So it`s ok to to have your freedom of speech as long as it suits only certain people?

1. His freedom of speech wasn't infringed upon. Please stop reiterating it because it is just not true at all.
2. No, that's not my point. I'm not advocating for locking him up or censoring him nor am I saying he shouldn't be hired anymore. All what I'm saying is, since this the US, the employer has the right to fire him even for such trivial reason. Is it unfair? Sure. I would love for him to fight back and get them to reinstate/ compensate him to advance worker rights in the US.

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you let the "invisible hand of the market" take control .

[fkizz]

Unfortunately, this is what happens when you let the "invisible hand of the market" take control .

God damnit, Adam Smith getting misquoted this way remembers of Bible misquotes pardon me the comparison;

When Adam Smith wrote wealth of the nations; It was to challenge the Feudalistic Mercantilistic mindset, where summed up fast it implied more wealth by conquering more territory from enemy king to have more subjects to tax from and more land for harvest and so on and on.

After challenging Feudalistic Mercantilism, said sentence was to promote Commerce as means of cooling down Monarch wars by showing profit alternative to Feudal quarrels.

It was not written in XXI century, but in XVIII century. Telegraphs didn't even exist back then.
Not that it is "outdated", but lets have some historical context, using a 240 years old quote at 100% literal value today, when historical, technological and political landscape have changed is only going to bring confusion.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Is his employer a public (i.e State) university or private university?

The is irrelevant. I work for a private business and I would absolutely be fired if I made an anonymous twitter account calling for the people I worked with to kill themselves and my colleagues frauds.

Ok, so let me get this right. A person spoke up about something they saw as wrong and immoral and even illegal (which your example would be) and it`s ok to sack him for it rather than stop doing what they`re doing?

And you don`t think his free speech has been violated?

Do you even understand what you are saying?

Do I have to explain where your moral compass is wrong?

Reread what you wrote. Please reread it.

If you find something immoral in your workplace you should go to your superiors to discuss it. If you find something illegal in your workplace you should report it to law enforcement.

You should not try to tweet anonymously, and lace it with personal invective against your colleagues.

I don't know what you guys do for your living, but for us who are professionals we are expected to maintain a certain standard of behavior. You have the right to freedom of speech. You do not have the right to employment. Nobody has stopped the idiot saying what he wants. They've suspended him from work for unprofessional behavior.

[Elfdude]

Do you have any evidence he ever twitted anything ''racist'' or ''sexist'' or critizing trigger warnings and safe spaces makes you racist and sexist?

Yes. Read his twitter. Scroll past the masturbatory self tweeting of his own story and you'll find tweet after tweet which are by ANYONE'S account borderline and then numerous ones where he goes full in. He jokes about rape. He says sexual assault isn't so bad. He reifies gender binary and demeans women. Sexist by every stretch of the word. With regards to racism, his tweets are distinctly anti-muslim, he claims that his own greatness is being damaged by identity politics and that affirmative action is keeping him down while his colleagues are hired only for their skin color (which you might rush to say ITS TRUE, point being he has no way to know it's true, he did not do the hiring and assuming this is BY DEFINITION racist) his main twitter account is almost as bad so frankly the news attention on this story is a manufactured controversy.

AGAIN HE PUT HIMSELF ON LEAVE.

Because in the first case, there'd be material to fire him but they didn't so I must assume he never did such a thing.

You cannot fire someone who works for a public institution for that. Essentially speaking there's a process investigated by a federal body named something diversity (like global diversity and inclusivity office) which usually also houses the title IX coordinator and etc. These are supposed to be independent investigators who assess issues which are problematic. The first factor they look at is if something problematic was said at any level, this is usually pretty easy and they often assess this as a yes. The second thing they look at is the damage caused by doing so. Typically the worst thing they can find is that a couple of students dropped the class, so they recommend diversity training and move on. In years of working in Higher Education politics I've never seen a professor legitimately fired for being cultural incompetent. The only time I've seen anything like this was a professor who was suspended due to borderline sexual harassment in a classroom where they made a student (who documented it) continuously be a case study on their sexuality in class and then proceeded to shamelessly hit on said student repeatedly in class. This was a female teacher BTW and they ended up resigning with a pretty cushy package because the school's lawyer wasn't certain that the legality existed to force them out which is basically the school buying the professor's resignation because the university would rather not get sued. I'm sure you'll bring up dozens of poorly researched responses to this. I await your BS.

Disgusting. He`s defending FREE SPEECH.

No, he's not. He's defending his right to be an on a level which is borderline harassment. Again, he put himself on leave. Again he's created this controversy. Again the only reason he went on leave was to avoid dealing with his colleagues who continuously object to his views with their FREE SPEECH subjecting it to academic scrutiny that continuously shows him to be the ass he is. Way to react to headline without validating its truth. More to the point you react with this drivel to someone who offered you a counter viewpoint. The irony of talking about free speech to silence someone who says your garbage media is garbage is beyond thick.

Do you understand what that means?

Clearly you don't.

It works both ways.

You're wrong both legally, figuratively, practically and technically. Freedom of speech in absolute context does not exist ANYWHERE. The truth of the matter is that the US does not even have the largest accommodations with regards to free speech (that prize belongs to the clearly SOCIALIST SOCIAL JUSTICE DISTOPIA OF EUROPE) so what you're talking about is utterly misinformed. Hate speech is not protected in the US under any law whatsoever, the best you can say is that you can say it until someone says something about it at which point the hate speech becomes harassment. I'm sorry but freedom of speech does not protect your right to bully, to namecall, to tell lies, to threaten, or to perpetuate prejudice. It's been that way since before you were probably born.

The very speech you are using to speak your rot.

Irony.

And he hasn`t been racist or sexist- you`re just demonising him so you feel better about yourself. You are attacking reason and free speech.

He hasn't? Ok. Did you actually research this or did you just assume? What do they say about assumptions? It makes an ass out of u and me?

Explain exactly what you mean by that.

Exactly what he stated. Freedom of speech exists for your employer too. Employers can fire you because they dislike your views. Employers can't fire you with regards to protected class status or affiliation. Republican, and/or conservative or democratc and/or liberal are not protected classes. Being a nitwit who has hostile views which not only are anathema to your colleagues but far past what typical college age students see as morally acceptable is nothing but a liability to your employer.

Let me translate from SJW to christian

I had to stop there and laugh my ass off. Let's continue.

"He is the devil, I say, the devil! A spawn of Satan!"

Obviously SJW's would appreciate Satan's stance on self-determination, critical thought, and freedom of expression. Nice try to parody my statements, it simply lacks any wit, relevance or meaning.

What your picture has to do with the story anyways? There is no racism or sexism on display, yet for some reason you felt compelled to post that image anyways.

lol, ok.

I've yet to see any evidence of "promoting the alt right being a huge cash cow", mind posting some?

Read his twitter. In fact here i'll do it for you:
https://twitter.com/drrectenwald
https://twitter.com/antipcnyuprof

Look at that masturbatory self tweeting. There's more tweets about himself and this one story than there are of anything else. The funny thing is that he still has rock bottom views and followers (probably because people could care less about him).

Elizabeth Sommers is your perfect example of someone who traded in their understanding of sociology and social justice to publish counter-cultural material in exchange for huge sums of money to throw her academic standing away.

Ok, so let me get this right. A person spoke up about something they saw as wrong and immoral and even illegal (which your example would be) and it`s ok to sack him for it rather than stop doing what they`re doing?

What did he speak up about which was illegal? Nothing? Oh woops. It's actually ok to sack him for just about anything. He could've farted and ended up ruining the office chairs and unless he could find a compelling reason why a medical condition required him to do so the school could sack him for almost no reason. The biggest problem for sacking him is the union he belongs do which will throw a fit if just cause isn't shown before firing him. However your side wants to kill unions too so who knows what policy in bizzaro political world you think is right. Also they didn't fire him. Also he placed himself on leave.

And you don`t think his free speech has been violated?

Did he express his speech? Yes. Was he punished via the law for doing so? No. His free speech was not violated.

Did he express views which aren't protected by free speech? Yes. Was he punished via the law for doing so? No. His free speech was not violated.

Do you even understand what you are saying?

Do you?

Do I have to explain where your moral compass is wrong?

Yes. That's what it means to discuss. If you just want to post baseless conclusions and judgement calls you might be in the wrong forum.

Reread what you wrote. Please reread it.

Only if you promise to actually read the details surrounding these stories.

Is his employer a public (i.e State) university or private university?

NYU is a private university. Preventing them from firing him for expressing his freedom of speech would be a violation of a private company's freedom of speech.

The regressives and their Islamist allies claim their latest victim.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/gymnastic...ing-to-mock-i/

Anybody else still confused as to why the far right is gaining ground?

This was the second behavior issue? This was a direct violation of a contractual agreement he made? Like, I'm sorry that he got dinged because he's representing an entire country and that means he's held to a much higher than ordinary standard but he was well aware of the issue before he got d and out of control.

And Christianity is belittled, insulted and mocked every day, everywhere and nobody minds.

Literally every winter is highlighted by the great exodus of "christians" from starbucks and the accompanying arguments. Do you even live on earth?

This is why well-meaning, decent people are hardening their hearts and moving away from the Left.

You know that's not true right? Literally the trend in politics is always to the left, sometimes the Left gets it wrong or moves too fast but over time everything moves towards the left. This has been truth since 1770 and the left was being independent of the UK, and 1812 when being left was having a standing army, and 1830 when being left was opposing slavery in your state and 1861 when being left was opposing slavery in the nation, and 1890 when being left was pushing for no child workers, and 1920 when being left was women's suffrage, and 1940 when being left was pushing for war, and 1960 when being left was pushing for civil rights, and 1980 when being left was pushing for equal rights regardless of gender, and 1990 when being left was and so on and so forth. The left always wins, how it wins and how much it has to compromise with the right to do so is always the question.

It`s happening in both Europe and America and is taking place in Australia also.

No it's not. You're looking at a day of warm weather in winter and declaring that it's summer. Trends are not the same thing as single issues.

But the sjws\feminists and the like are too busy persecuting decent people for having an opinion to notice.

Social justice has gone from an academic concept to a concept understood by academia to a concept understood by the educated, to a concept now being disseminated to the public at large. It underpins all social progress since the 1950's. You're perception of reality is simply wrong.

So there's zero evidence that he said anything racist or sexist? What a surprise.

Newsflash I've posted several definitions. Maybe try to use one of them?

Even the apex of all PC regressive lunacy and nastiness - The Guardian has spoken out against this vindictive and cowardly ban.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/bl...stics#comments

The views of a blogger do not represent the views of theguardian. The Guardian and other news media use bloggers to generate viewcounts, not because they see them as the pinnacle of newsworthiness. It wasn't a ban either, it was a suspension. Get it right.

Still doesn`t make it right and if an employee knows what he`s doing he could cause such Employers huge embarrassment for their unethical ways.

All he's done is make himself a liability for law suit both for his union and his university. He'll either stop when he realizes he's not the best guy for the alt-right to prove their case at which point he'll return to work, or he'll get a big contract where he uses his academic understanding to poke holes in the inexpert views on social justice that are parroted by people who don't know any better.

I am about Justice and what is right.

That's interesting, yet you don't want to explain what right is, what justice is, or where our moral compasses have gone wrong? Could it be that you don't know?

Not social justice as that`s bs.

You disagree with justice within society? That's funny.

There is justice, individual justice, justice. Social justice is NOT justice. So I will call out something that is unjust whether on the right, centre or left.

Correction, you will presume your rightist definition of justice defines all justice and thus while appearing to seek justice the only thing which can be just is conservative alt-right nonsense.

But back to the point: It is an attack on Free Speech by fear. No one is going to speak up if they know they could lose their entire livelihood. Only the very brave or those with tenure (as in Uni Professors) can risk speaking out without fear of being punished for their Free Speech.

Like literally university professors have had tenure for over a hundred years. They have less today than they ever have had primarily because of conservatives like yourself pushing anti union garbage views. Academia is literally the safest place to parrot ANY view (not just liberal or conservative ones) precisely because of the freedom of speech professors have which is Amongst the most protected under law in the US. The reason why Univ. Professors don't speak out against social justice by and large is because they agree with it. Science professors. Math professors. Business professors. I could go on.

No you wouldn`t. And no, this is a different situation and is a sign of a far greater problem at Unis. The man`s going to find it harder to speak out without a job

First, this is a private university. Second, it's not a sign of problems, there's far worse "signs" of problems. For example complaints about other professors being racist are about 10 to 100x more common than complaints about professors feeling oppressed because they're conservative. This is a clear example of bias on your part. Third, these people are probably the most intellectually honest posters here, if you can show him why he's wrong he'll almost always admit it and call himself out and proceed to call others out on it.

The man is speaking out against pc. A man should be free to do that without fear of losing his job, especially at a Uni which is a place of learning and ideas.

He's speaking out against the movement in defense of his right to be anti-PC as in, sexist, racist etc. Seriously understand the implications of your own words here.

You honestly believe that each of those excuses are reasons to deprive a man of his livelihood for speaking out against pc today? Are not places of learning supposed to stand for higher ideals than this?

He never said that, he merely stated that they can and will fire you for less so why the faux drama over a professor who put himself on leave?

So it`s ok to to have your freedom of speech as long as it suits only certain people?

God damnit, Adam Smith getting misquoted this way remembers of Bible misquotes pardon me the comparison;

Fkizz sees a quote referencing the impact of market forces with regards to moral compromises and thinks talking about etymology of an idiom is relevant to the modern understanding that market forces often trump ethical concerns. If a company can save money by dumping illegally, they do it. If they can save money by taking out lie insurance on their workers and betting they will die, they do it. If they can save liability by cutting off a problematic worker, they do it. Nice try at remaining relevant.


Kindly keep your comments on-topic.
-Tiberios

[Infidel144]

The is irrelevant. I work for a private business and I would absolutely be fired if I made an anonymous twitter account calling for the people I worked with to kill themselves and my colleagues frauds.

Irrelevant non-answer. I don't give a wub about what ever business you claim to work for, nor did I ask about you. If it is a private university then they can fire/punish with out it being a violation of 'free speech'. If it is public, then it is an arm of the State.

NYU is a private university.

Thank you.

Did he express views which aren't protected by free speech? Yes.

What views did he express that are not protected by free speech?
Provide his quotes.

Hate speech is not protected in the US under any law whatsoever, the best you can say is that you can say it until someone says something about it at which point the hate speech becomes harassment. I'm sorry but freedom of speech does not protect your right to bully, to namecall, to tell lies, to threaten, or to perpetuate prejudice. It's been that way since before you were probably born. Kindly learn law.

Can you cite the US law against hate speech?

[StarDreamer]

I was parodying how he is a heretic in the eyes of SJW's because he is an academic that doesn't follow the "party-line". And instead of linking to the accounts, if he really has some bad tweets, why not link directly to them? I don't have time to go through someones twitter. Simply put if he is so bad, prove it, don't expect others to wade through someones account to try and find those "bad tweets" you say exist. Otherwise I'll go with this being the typical SJW badmouthing of someone with stuff he hasn't done expecting people to believe them just because they shouted racist and sexist and believing people would believe them without checking themselves. I go with the western tradition of only believing stuff people actually prove to be true.

[Basil II the B.S]

Yes. Read his twitter. Scroll past the masturbatory self tweeting of his own story and you'll find tweet after tweet which are by ANYONE'S account borderline and then numerous ones where he goes full in. He jokes about rape. He says sexual assault isn't so bad. He reifies gender binary and demeans women. Sexist by every stretch of the word. With regards to racism, his tweets are distinctly anti-muslim, he claims that his own greatness is being damaged by identity politics and that affirmative action is keeping him down while his colleagues are hired only for their skin color (which you might rush to say ITS TRUE, point being he has no way to know it's true, he did not do the hiring and assuming this is BY DEFINITION racist) his main twitter account is almost as bad so frankly the news attention on this story is a manufactured controversy.

1) Rape jokes are rude, not sexist.
2) Criticizing affirmative action isn't racist.
3) Criticizing identity politics isn't racist either.

You know what's racist by definition and one definition only that is claiming one race is inferior?
It's funny because it's also sexist and eterophobic.

This kind of Social Justice video by Lena Durham:
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/statu...29098926166016

''How do you feel about the extinction of white men?
''White men are a problem, straight white men are a big problem.''


Straight white man is the new jew. Enjoy your inevitable rise of white nationalism, created by the constant demonization made by Social Justice activists.

[Karnil Vark Khaitan]

I can't believe I read through his tweets till 2015.....
He just seems like a guy who acts as a Trump supporter and really hates PC.
He is Vulgar in is tone, but the only really weird one is: "President Obama Accepts Slavery in Order to Win TPP Trade Deal"

he is just the typical Right wing nutter if you ask me, not really a reason to firer him, unless he acted differently in person outside twitter.

[Humble Warrior]

1) Rape jokes are rude, not sexist.
2) Criticizing affirmative action isn't racist.
3) Criticizing identity politics isn't racist either.

You know what's racist by definition and one definition only that is claiming one race is inferior?
It's funny because it's also sexist and eterophobic.

This kind of Social Justice video by Lena Durham:
https://twitter.com/lenadunham/statu...29098926166016

''How do you feel about the extinction of white men?
''White men are a problem, straight white men are a big problem.''


Straight white man is the new jew. Enjoy your inevitable rise of white nationalism, created by the constant demonization made by Social Justice activists.

Well said. And agreed on all points.
And as I said before, Social justice is not Justice. Justice is justice.

[Himster]

1) Rape jokes are rude,

Sometimes, other times: no they're not. It depends on the context.

not sexist.

That depends on the intent of the speaker.
The content can be sexist, totally independent from the context and the intention.
Social vengeance :wub:s choose to interpret all of these as one thing, so no matter what: any kind of joke is inherently problematic, they make it "problematic" because they believe thy're the only "good guys" on Earth and are therefore justified in being obnoxious mongoloids.

''How do you feel about the extinction of white men?
''White men are a problem, straight white men are a big problem.''

You know what's really anoying. When I was growing up the Irish were scum: terrorists, thieving paddies, drunken micks, inbred idiots and all of that. We finally got over that and finally earned (after a lot of work) the title of being "white". What happens straight away? The Irish are scum again. That's the luck of the Irish for ye: it seems grand for a while and then you get struck with a famine and/or raped by priests.

Straight white man is the new jew. Enjoy your inevitable rise of white nationalism, created by the constant demonization made by Social Justice activists.

I still can't understand why they refuse to see what they've done and are doing. They're driving moderates away with their insanity and then radicalizing which makes all other groups radicalize in response and then they radicalize back and back and forth, this crazy escalation. No wonder Trump did so terrifyingly well. It's these "well meaning" (which they're not) ers, radicalizing the far-right and herding millions to be against liberalism and progress and moderation. They're essentially recruiting for nazis.