No it wouldn't, but it would advance alternative ideas and thoughts that the others have refused to deal with.
Perjorative Words and Agendas
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
No it wouldn't, but it would advance alternative ideas and thoughts that the others have refused to deal with.
How is "free speech" free if you have to pay for it with the loss of your job and your income? You have to "pay" for your free speech if you step outside whatever the current norms of PC is which changes very rapidly as we all know. What's acceptable today may not be acceptable tomorrow. What Paul Deen said occurred over 30 years ago and today it cost her $12M to admit what she said 30 years ago. Frankly, I'm sick of it all. I have seen 4 star generals lose their job because they spoke out and told the truth about something that other people deemed to be too politically incorrect and their entire career of performing a service for their nation is wiped out with a few spoken words. I find it slightly ironic that people who spend their lives in service to our country and to uphold our constitution lose their job for doing something that is protected under the constitution supposedly. And I say supposedly because we see it isn't really so. PC permeates everything we do in our lives. Politics of one sort or another and PC follow us everywhere we go. Every office has politics and every business has politics. You may see it or you may not. Ignorance is bliss until it runs you over.
Hi Tim,
Could you attribute your sources?
Thanks
That came from an article in the New York Times.
Tim
Employers have no choice because it isn't "free" for them to have you say what you want while wearing their badge. Your free speech may result in considerable damage to their business and with it, cost the other employees raises or their jobs. And it is not just a matter of what is politically correct vs not. It is attempting to make your beliefs, that of the company's. We were once in very serious litigation with another company. They get everyone's emails and turns out one of our people had called the CEO of the other company terms I won't repeat but something align the lines of him being anti-god, anti-religion. That was pretty damaging since it set the tone for us having a personal thing against the other company. We of course did not but the email says so in black and white from an employee. Should we have lost the case unjustly because that employee spoke his mind and exercised free speech?
When you work for a company, your objectives need to be aligned with the company or you need to go and find another job. You can't take a salary and then work against the purpose of the company which is to make money. If you want to work for free, sure, maybe it would be different. But not when you take a paycheck home. A business is there to make money and not for some social good. Your job is to help them make money, not to hurt that opportunity.
So no, I don't believe in employees having free speech rights that hurts the organization that butters their bread. Quit you job and then say what you want.
Mark --
I largely agree with you. Ironically, for a multicultural society to be successful, we need to be more forgiving and willing to let an ill-considered moment from 30 years ago fall away, rather than let it define a person's entire character.
Unfortunately, the PC police is increasing willing to limit speech
Last edited:
Steve Williams
Site Founder, Site Owner, Administrator
John
Coming from Canada, IIRC was this not the reason the NDP was formed or am I forgetting. PM
me as we're OT.
Amir-You are just reinforcing my point that there is no free speech. And I'm trying to understand how one guy sent an email that said disparaging things about the CEO of another company and somehow one's persons thoughts suddenly become all of Microsoft's employee's thoughts. Unless the email circulated around the entire Microsoft organization and everyone jumped in and said yeah, I don't like him either. Obviously there is more to the story because you didn't mention what started the litigation in the first place. It's quite common for CEOs not to like CEOs in rival businesses. Can you say Larry Ellison? Microsoft has made more than a few enemies over the years and has been in involved in anti-trust litigation. Think any rival companies ever had emails going around saying unkind things about Microsoft's business practices?
I have worked for the same employer for over 38 years so obviously I know when to bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut. I know my place in the organization and what I bring to it and what is expected from me.
I have worked for the same employer for over 38 years so obviously I know when to bite my tongue and keep my mouth shut. I know my place in the organization and what I bring to it and what is expected from me.
That is the real question and I also question the value of 11 million mostly unskilled and under educated aliens providing value over those who are waiting in line with education that can contribute to society rather than drag via social welfare. I'm not saying all 11 million, but I am pretty sure it's a high percentage.
If you are hired you are agreeing and accepting of the terms set forth by the new employer. This, to me, is not a grey area. If you feel you cannot abide by those terms....leave. While people have a right to freedom of speech, employers also have a right to protect their interest. This is common sense to me.
Let me be clear that I did not say it was Microsoft. I have worked for a number of companies and for obvious reasons, I am not going to say which one it was.
That aside, one needs to appreciate the legal system is not one that determines the truth, but rather one that assigns blame on one side or the other as the great line goes in the movie, A Few Good Men. When issues are complex and juries are involved, cases are often or even routinely decided on secondary factors. "If you look like a thief, you must be a thief." Anything that can make you look like a bad guy is and will be used to paint that picture whether it is or it isn't related to the case. Humans are involved in making such decisions and you can't separate them from the decision. It is easier to decide if you "stole" something from another guy based on human factors than to sort through what a patent means and whether the other guy violated it in some complicated application.
The email was specifically found and used by the other side to make the point that I specified. That is how/I found out about it. It is not like we went looking for it. The person held a very senior role which implied it was the views of he company being expressed, not the specific employee. Yeh, you are going to say they shouldn't have but that is how the system works.
Don't look but you are stepping into the same sort of issue you have created a post here for. I make a simple point about something, you quickly stereotype me as having only worked for Microsoft, and run off with it as the scenario without asking me first if that is what it was. By the same token, the "politically correct" way of saying things is made to do away with such prejudices.
As to your question, yes, there are those emails saying bad things about the other company. And they will absolutely be used against you to good effect in legal cases. Don't think for a moment that "everybody does it" is a reason it won't. "Everybody" is not in litigation. YOU ARE. I have been involved in so many of these cases where if I am typing under company email address, I assume every email could be used in public or court of law and conduct myself that way. No, it is not a violation of free speech for me to act that way. It is what is expected of me as an executive of a company to conduct myself in a proper way given the high probability that email discovery is the first step in any litigation.
I was once deposed for a patent litigation case. I spent 8 hours there even though the attorney from the other side that was grilling me repeatedly said he knew that I had no knowledge of the case other than a single email where that company was coming to visit us. The entire 8 hours was spent trying to get dirt from me about the others in the company. The law and lawsuits don't work remotely like how we think they are.
Very well. Then I wonder why you thought the other employee should have been fine that did not "bite his tongue."
Amir-I hope you understand the difference between making an incorrect assumption and stereotyping someone. I made an incorrect assumption that you spent the majority of your career at Microsoft based on your writings. If you have ever discussed working for another company other than Microsoft, I missed it. Making an incorrect assumption that you spent your career at Microsoft cannot be construed as stereotyping you. Stereotyping you as what? A Microsoft engineer? You can't get there from here. You can make assumptions about people based on stereotypes, but to assume someone has spent their career in one place is not an example of stereotyping.
You would have to understand what he said and the context he said it in and then maybe you would get it. But then again I have heard that all Microsoft engineers are thick-headed.
Now that would be an example of stereotyping if there was a grain of truth to that last statement.Tom-Thanks for reinforcing my central premise that we don't have freedom of speech. We just need to quit pretending that we do. All of the arguments being made here aren't arguments telling me I'm wrong and we really do have free speech, they are arguments explaining why it is OK and proper that we don't have freedom of speech. I "get" those arguments as long as people realize that while freedom of speech is a nice concept, it's just not a reality.
We do have free speech. We are free to put our foot into our mouth at anytime, and pay the price for doing it.
John-Have you ever signed an employment agreement where you agreed to waive your right of free speech? I didn't think so. It's an unwritten rule with the exception of nondisclosure agreements and other confidentiality agreements that you sometimes have to sign as a condition of employment in order to provide a level of assurance that you won't give away proprietary data to a competitor.
I know the difference Mark. Your reply makes me wonder if you know the difference. Here is the definition: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/stereotype
"something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially : a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment"
Your "mental picture" of me is a "Microsoft guy" and you used that assumption with conviction in your last response. No hesitation. No wondering if you are right. But absolute generalization that I am a Microsoft guy.
The best lesson I ever learned about this topic was from the first sexual/workplace harassment class I took: "it does not matter how you feel about what you say/do, it matters how the person receiving it does." I have worked for 35 years. Out of that, about 10 years of it was at Microsoft, or about a third. So from where I sit, it is pretty improper for someone so easily equating every work experience I have as being at Microsoft. You obviously don't see an issue in that way and have an explanation for it, i.e. not knowing. But per that lesson that I learned, it doesn't matter. It only matters what impression it leaves on me.
By the same token, it matters not whether you think there is no value in PC terms. It only matters whether the person receiving such a term would value the PC version vs not. Our opinion as the class that wants to utter those words, not being in that class, has zero import. Or else every bully or racist would be qualified to say what he wants because in his mind, it is fine and not an insult.
Uh, and that means it really isn't free doesn't it? The concept/ideal is dead, I just not sure how long it's been dead because I haven't seen the headstone on the grave.
I can't think of anything more incorrect Mark. I was once in Shanghai China. When there, it looks like any other modern western cities. We were meeting with the #1 media conglomerate there that owned a bunch of TV stations, theaters and film/TV production. After we met with their top execs, he takes on a tour of their TV product facility. We get in the elevator and go up. The doors open and I look to the left and I see what I normally see: ton of equipment. I look in front and I see a Chinese military guard with a gun! I thought we walk right past him given the level of the guy giving us the tour. But no. He has to show him papers and a discussion for a few minutes before we are allowed to go. During that time, the solider had the complete upper hand. Why? Because they don't want to remotely risk anyone exercising their "free speech" over that TV station.
The level of freedom we have in US is incredible. It is a gift and something that once you see the contrast with it not being there, is realized. The mere fact that we can sit here and openly criticize our government is something that can get you thrown in jail and never seen again in many countries, shows how much of that freedom we still enjoy.
Why should their be a price ? Let's face it, the liberal elite hypocrites crucified Paul Dean....needlessly. Liberals are angry and vindictive, conservatives are happy and prefer to mind their own business until their freedoms are challenged. There have been many polls that support this theory.
Similar threads
