No.11166[View All]
File: 1653742247781.png (287.74 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google
I'm reading a book about Oculus, which is an interesting subject in itself. Anyway Oculus was sold to Facebook, and following Facebook finding out that Oculus founder Palmer Lucky supported Donald Trump, the Facebook CEO required that Lucky cease support for Donald Trump or resign. Sadly, it was further found that Lucky ceased to be useful to Oculus even after following this dictate.
So I suppose I can ask a more general question:
Do people who are corporations have a right to choose associations based on the association's political opinions? That is, should corporations be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people based on who they vote for or which politicians they like?
Alternately, do people who are not corporations have such a right? For example, some people don't eat at Chic-Fil-A because they (he? she?) support(s) Republican causes. Is that OK?
(Also, is anyone else struggling with language now that corporations are people? Like, I tried to google how corporations identify their gender but found...nothing, really.)
60 posts and 1 image reply omitted. Click reply to view. No.11265
>>11263>Also, plainly put, I'd like to point out that we're talking about conservatives losing their jobs. That's it. It isn't coming from the government, so it's not state oppression. It's just general social standards.Just because it isn't from the government doesn't mean it's acceptable.
You aren't, I presume, going to declare all the racial segregation on the part of businesses to be perfectly fine, are you?
Surely we shouldn't have white-only restaurants, or put signs up saying "negros need not apply", right?
>>11264Nobody said you don't have rights.
Your attempts at such an appeal are thus largely meaningless to me
Ironically, though, your description therein makes it patently obvious, you aren't talking about rights.
Rights apply fairly and evenly to everyone.
Yet I'm pretty sure you'd be quite upset if some business was to apply this 'right' you supposedly have, in the reverse. Would it deign to support those who oppose you, for instance, or make clear you aren't accepted while others are.
No.11266
>>11262We're going to have to agree to disagree because I think that "not being a bigot" is a rather clear and distinct line that can be used to divide the employable from the not.
It's not statistical, but neither are other common business evaluations such as "is a team player", "acts polite", "goes the extra mile for customers", and so on. If all of those such subjective measurements in terms of morality are used, I don't see how the easy and simple universal ethical rule of "isn't a bigot" can't be added.
No.11267
>>11265You're badly not getting this.
Being hostile to bigots is being nice to regular people.
Being nice to regular people is being hostile to bigots.
You can't be supportive of both. Its like being supportive of both children and child molesters. You have to pick one.
Really, now.
No.11268
>>11265I'd like rights that apply fairly and evenly to everyone.
That means that people who want to remove those rights from me and others have to be opposed.
I'd like for that to take place through social debate and regular democratic governance, although the love for political violence and embrace of autocracy by the right lately makes that harder and harder still. But it's worth it. Important.
No.11269
>>11266Considering you view the majority of conservatives as bigots, it's very clearly not a 'clear and distinct line'.
>but neither are other common business evaluations such as "is a team player", "acts polite", "goes the extra mile for customers", and so on.True, and those common evaluations are examples of absolute shit practices by corporations, frankly.
These are nebulous determinative factors that functionally mean less "this is a good employee" and more "we want to fire this guy without cause and get away with it"
But you clearly have more faith in big business than I, so I'll digress on that point.
No.11270
>>11269It's not that I trust or like big business.
It's that I think as a matter of basic property rights, first, and social moral standards to keep civilization from falling apart, second, and good business practices, third, that employers ought to have the right to ax bigots. And I consider it morally right as well as something that should be legal. Both.
Broadly speaking, it's more that I think governments and other instutions in American life have been more tyrannical than big business, frankly.
No.11271
>>11268>I'd like for that to take place through social debate and regular democratic governance, although the love for political violence and embrace of autocracy by the right lately makes that harder and harder still. But it's worth it. Important.This is pretty much case and point why I find it so difficult to take you at your word.
You simultaneously insist you want the same as me, everyone to have equal rights under the law, while ignoring what your side does and blaming the entirety of the right for all sorts of insane nonsense.
There's not been a more authoritarian president than Biden, yet you'll insist that it's the right who's "embraced autocracy".
There's been riot after riot, violence after violence, constant intimidation and outright murders in cold-blooded ambushes at this point, by the left, but it's the right who loves political violence.
Why on earth would I trust you, given your clear and present biases, in dictating moral standards to anyone, let alone people's livelihoods?
It seems to me, you'd likely lump my family into the same category, though we've done nothing to you, nor anyone else, for being "harmful conservatives".
Why should I be denied a job, left penniless on the street in a system that hates me, because you wish to play moral arbitrator?
No.11272
>>11271Frankly, given that your side quite literally goes well beyond wanting me and my people to be unemployable to the point of openly calling for murder of us, I think that I'm amazingly nice and unreasonably caring in what I'm advocating.
I just want companies to oppose bigotry as good business. That's it. Feel free to be a bigot on your own time. Government shouldn't stop your free speech or anything else. Hell, get armed too if you want. As long a you're a law-abiding citizen about that.
On the other hand, if your side takes power across the U.S. again my best case scenario is being homeless and viewed as a subhuman via state discrimination. Worst case is my corpse hanging from a lamppost. That's that.
No.11274
>>11272>Frankly, given that your side quite literally goes well beyond wanting me and my people to be unemployable to the point of openly calling for murder of us, I think that I'm amazingly nice and unreasonably caring in what I'm advocating.And here's another example of what I mean.
It's "your side" with this whole lot.
You group us all together, with people who you can't even cite, as though I hold that stance.
Shall I lump you in with the like of Stalin, and presume you want me murdered in the gulags, too?
Do you think this hostile presumption will net us a safer, better society? Or do you think this might well just create hostile tribes forced to destroy one another simply to survive?
>Feel free to be a bigot on your own time. Except that we've already established through several posts and replies, you do not think people ought be allowed to be a bigot on their own time.
Are you just going to ignore your own argument through countless posts, now?
>On the other hand, if your side takes power across the U.S. again my best case scenario is being homeless and viewed as a subhuman via state discrimination. Worst case is my corpse hanging from a lamppost. That's that.And if your side gets power, I'll likely be shot, my family locked away in some gulag forced labor camp, our lands stolen, and our kids forced through reeducation.
See how productive it is to presume sides?
Look how great the discussion we're getting here. Now we both presume the other is a cold-blooded murderer, and that the only chance for survival is to oppress the other.
How great. You've managed to devolve politics back into the ancient days, when we'd kill one another purely for who's from what tribe.
No.11276
>>11274Popular conservatives call for murdering transgender people. Popular transgender people don't call for murdering conservatives. I know that you badly want to "but it's both sides" this. But you truly can't.
Literally all I want is to accepted and valued for what I was born as. That's it. I want the bare minimum of human rights, especially the right to life. That's it.
That ask will never, ever be the same as that what's being asked for from your side. It just isn't. At all.
No.11278
>>11276>Popular conservatives call for murdering transgender people. Cite your sources. I've not seen it.
I've got Maxine Waters telling her followers to harass those she disagrees with in their daily lives, if you'd like. But I'm pretty certain most every politician knows, you can't just encourage murders.
> I want the bare minimum of human rights, especially the right to life. That's it.You do not have a right to acceptance. Nobody is obligated to care about you, nor even be nice to you.
Nor do you even have a right to life.
It's no violation of rights if you get killed in a traffic collision, nor is it a violation of rights if you jump off a mountain, nor a violation of rights if you had a heart attack.
No.11279
>>11274Again, all I want is companies to oppose bigotry. That's it. If you want a regular job, then either actually choose not to be a bigot or at least pretend in your open social life not to be one. This is an incredibly easy request. If being a bigot is so deeply important that it trumps everything else, then I guess it's reaonable to say that you're going to have to accept that others won't like your choice and won't want to have anything to do with you.
It has to be legal to be a bigot. Be armed. Exercise free speech rights. Of course. But don't assume that you've a right to make others want to listen to you. Let alone associate with you.
Nothing about this is unreasonable. Honestly, I feel like a pathetic centrist stereotype for typing it out. In a normal country such as, say, Austria or Germany public workplace expressions of bigotry put you in actual jail. All I want is a pink slip.
No.11280
>>11278Going to completely disagree.
If you're a human being with a conscience, then you should care about others and support others in terms of their God-given human rights.
But I can't make somebody else think they they should value other peoples lives.
That's a fundamental ethical aspect of life that goes back to preschool, really.
If you don't have the mental wiring to care, then you won't.
No.11281
>>11274I'd also like to point out that it's conservatives who start the whole 'our side' versus 'your side' thing since in the abstract there's no inherent reason for it.
Two babies playing aren't going to care if one is Jewish and the other not. Or one disabled or the other not. Or whatever else.
It's an imposition from the outside getting carefully taught in order for one individual to be supposedly inferior or superior to the other, coming from some conservative with a view of who's best.
No.11282
>>11279And as I've said numerous times; You've demonstrated yourself to be an unreliable definition of bigot, showing exactly the kind of issue with these moral judgements.
Your standards are not universal. Nor do I think they're even consistent in respect to your own beliefs, given again you seem to be more than happy to make sweeping assertions of other groups, with the claim that it's okay because they're an enemy faction.
> In a normal country such as, say, Austria or Germany public workplace expressions of bigotry put you in actual jail.You claim the right wants authoritarianism, and yet argue that authoritarian hellhole nations that quite literally do not have the most basic fundamental rights codified into law are "normal"...
Considering you were earlier trying to argue that telling people they need to be polite at work was some kind of 1984 extreme authoritarianism, too, I genuinely don't think you've got a consistent belief here.
No.11283
>>11280>If you're a human being with a conscience, then you should care about others and support others in terms of their God-given human rights.That has nothing to do with what I've just pointed to.
Sure, I care about rights. I never said I didn't.
I just said nobody's
obligated to care.
You really make a habit of replying before you read my posts.
No.11284
>>11281Flatly put, you've been the one insisting "conservatives" and "bigot" are synonymous, this entire thread. Hell, you're doing the same type of rot right there in this reply.
The idea that it's conservatives who are doing the 'our side vs ur side' is laughable, considering your actions.
The sole individual responsible for such rhetoric here and now is you.
I am not going to entertain your attempts to dodge responsibility and blame others for your own actions.
No.11285
>>11282Well, no kidding, bigots and their ideological best friends who unconditionally support them (like how even regular conservatives cover for neo-Nazis and such based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") are going to have a definition of bigotry that has no connection to reality.
Among the 75% or whatever broad majority of normal people in the country without blinding bias, though, there can be fair rules.
No.11286
>>11285Please provide the citations that show 75% of the country have a consistent fair-ruled definition of what is bigotry.
I know full well you can't. Because ultimately, you've been doing nothing but making sweeping assertions of the country, as though they're fact, with no basis whatsoever in reality.
Ironic that you complain of some supposed lack of connection to reality in some other imagined group's definitions of bigotry, while demonstrating you've not got a consistent standard yourself.
You rather clearly demonstrate yourself exactly why this is an abhorrent standard to determine whether or not people ought have the capacity to feed themselves and their family.
No.11288
>>11283You are, if you have a heart, obligated to care.
Of course, nobody else can make you not be a bad person ethically if you choose to be one. That's life. You can't teach moral standards like mathematics or such.
No.11290
>>11288"If you have a heart" isn't a cause for obligation.
Morally speaking, you have none. Emotional appeals do not change that.
No.11293
>>11291So some random no-name candidate constitutes "popular conservatives", leaving aside the plural, and apparently "transgenders" constitutes anti-constitutional traitors.
I'm not overly shocked, this is about what I expected. But still. You should mind your hyperbole.
This guy's a nutter, to be sure, but the claim he's calling for the murder of transgender people is just outright nonsensical.
>>11292I do not think you've been nice at all.
You've certainly been more than happy to make sweeping assertions about me and my family, all for the crime of having different politics to you.
No.11295
>>11293To be honest, if this is your detachment from objective factual reality after looking at the article, future discussion between us is pointless.
I'll just close by saying that I think that ultimately your side will lose and that America will never become a fascist dictatorship in which we get put in coffins.
No.11296
>>11295Bro, I read the fucking article.
It is an objective fact you're lying about it's content. Sorry if truth fucking upsets you.
I never once said I want fascism, at all, nor have I ever suggested anything anywhere near that. I've quite consistently argued for less control than you, quite frankly. You're the one who wants to start ostracizing your fellow citizen for arbitrary characteristics, after all.
Your labeling anyone who dares show your dishonesty as some fascist tells us everything we need to know about you.
No.11297
>>11291Your best find to what you call "popular conservative" is some candidate that doesn't even hold any office or have any power? You'll forgive me for not finding that particularly meaningful, won't you? We're talking about someone with about as much political clout and power as vermin supreme. Plus he's not calling for the execution of trans people. The most extreme interpretation would be he's calling for the arrest and trial of parents and teachers who push transitioning on children at an early age. Try to make sure you warm up before making a stretch like that or you'll pull a muscle.
>>11295I've told you this before, but you've swallowed their pill, you've eaten the propaganda. You'd be better off if you stopped that. I personally hate the south and a lot of foundational parts of social conservatism, but such a dogmatic, unsympathetic approach accomplishes nothing. It's the same as some conservative seeing all liberals as entitled rioters who want to rape kids and are brainwashed by the state.
No.11298
>>11296You clearly didn't read it at all. Or else you simply are blind. My God, is this really what politics has come to in America? You literally can't understand what you see with your own eyeballs?
I hope there won't be a civil war.
No.11299
>>11298I both read the item, and watched the clip provided.
He did not call for the murder of transgenders. That is flatly a lie.
It as an objective statement of fact did not occur. Not even the article claims it occurred.
No.11300
>>11297My God, did you even begin to read the article?
I despair for this country.
No.11302
>>11300Please provide the direct quote from this guy where he says he wants to murder transgenders.
it doesn't happen, so you won't. Not even the article says that. The most they'll go is to claim in the title, a notoriously untruthful segment of most articles, that he wants to execute parents of transgender kids.
You're just outright making up stuff now.
No.11303
>>11301Shit, I guess when Obama was talking about drone strikes on ISIS, that meant he was totally saying he was going to murder all republicans, right?
The article provides a quote block from the guy directly;
>"We need to hold people for treason, start having some public hearings, and start executing people who are found guilty for their treasonous acts against the Constitution of the United States of America,” Burns concluded. “Just like they did back in 1776.”Your narrative is flatly and objectively false. The guy's a loony to be sure. But you're still lying about what he's supposedly said.
No.11307
>>11304>From an ethical perspective you guys morally deserve paragraph after paragraph of profanity filled bile in order to make this situation even begin to be morally even.And if this isn't everything you need to know at this point, I don't know what is.
Those who disagree with you deserve mistreatment for that crime. How dare they have different views and understandings. How dare they hold me to account.
Clearly everyone who dares go against you deserves profanity filled bile.
What madness.
No.11309
>>11308Nobody here is going to kill you.
Your deluded schizophrenia is not reality.
No.11310
>>11309It would help if you guys even had a slight relationship with reality, even a tiny one.
I still think that your side is going to lose in the long run.
At a base level, you can't kill all of us.
No.11312
>>11308Genuinely the sort of thing someone with schizophrenia would say. You should seek professional help, because this is not a healthy mentality, and professional help might prevent you from doing something tragic.
>>11310What do you think my "side" is? Tell me. I want to just get a sense of how much projecting you're doing, even though i just told you I'm not a conservative, please, tell me what you think my "side" is.
No.11313
>>11311It's literally in the title of the article.
I don't even know how to begin to coexist on Earth with your side, I really don't.
I actually value the historical Nazis in Germany kind of higher because they were hateful bigots advocating for oppression and were intellectually honest about that, instead of inventing some kind of an ideological blindness scam where bigotry wasn't real and the Jews were just deluded paranoics.
Is there anything that I can say at this point?
Literally anything at all?
No.11316
>>11313Titles of this nature are usually about 80% exaggerated clickbait. Welcome to the modern information age, where exaggeration and clickbait reign supreme ;-;. Reading the article actually tells you more nuance, albeit with a very clear bias from the author.
>>11314I already told you what i want you to do. It's right there in my tiny post.
1) seek professional help to manage your potential anxiety/delusions to prevent you from doing something dangerous.
2) tell me what you think my political ideals are, since you seem to think i have a side, i'd like you to tell me what you think my side is, what my political ideals are, because i'm genuinely curious as to what this twisted image you have of me is.
3) Work on your reading comprehension
I never said anything about punishment, or perceiving you as mentally inferior. There's a difference between being a bit dull and dumb, and being unhinged and psychologically unwell. I perceive you as being delusional, not dumb. I believe you refuse to engage with your higher brain functions because you've built yourself an ideology house, and you refuse to leave it, rationalizing anything you see into place like a hammer forces a nail. Many people do this, to be honest, it's the nature of the house you've built, one that i believe may lead you to violence, that worries me.
