Amir-The word "stereotype" usually has very negative connotations associated with it. Some examples would be: "All French people are rude." "Polish people are stupid." "All government workers are lazy." If someone graduates school and goes to work for a company and spends their entire career there, what kind of stereotype is that? I told you that based on your writing on this forum, the only job outside of the audio/video business you started that I have ever heard you discuss was your job at Microsoft. If you ever discussed any other job you held in your career besides Microsoft, I missed those threads. Therefore, I made an assumption that you had spent your career at Microsoft. Was I wrong about my assumption? Yes, I was. Does that equate to stereotyping you? I never in my life realized that if someone spends their entire career working for one company that makes them fit into some sort of stereotype. What would that stereotype be Amir? I have basically spent my entire adult life working for one organization so I'm in that "stereotype" if I could only figure out what that means. I feel like you are beating a square peg into a round hole and hope that if you hit it hard enough it will "fit." Assumptions about people can be based on stereotypes, but for the life of me how assuming that someone spent their career at one place somehow stereotypes them is beyond me.
Perjorative Words and Agendas
- Thread starter mep
- Start date
Amir-The word "stereotype" usually has very negative connotations associated with it. Some examples would be: "All French people are rude." "Polish people are stupid." "All government workers are lazy." If someone graduates school and goes to work for a company and spends their entire career there, what kind of stereotype is that? I told you that based on your writing on this forum, the only job outside of the audio/video business you started that I have ever heard you discuss was your job at Microsoft. If you ever discussed any other job you held in your career besides Microsoft, I missed those threads. Therefore, I made an assumption that you had spent your career at Microsoft. Was I wrong about my assumption? Yes, I was. Does that equate to stereotyping you? I never in my life realized that if someone spends their entire career working for one company that makes them fit into some sort of stereotype. What would that stereotype be Amir? I have basically spent my entire adult life working for one organization so I'm in that "stereotype" if I could only figure out what that means. I feel like you are beating a square peg into a round hole and hope that if you hit it hard enough it will "fit." Assumptions about people can be based on stereotypes, but for the life of me how assuming that someone spent their career at one place somehow stereotypes them is beyond me.
The reality is, people say stupid things on the Net and otherwise. That can reflect badly on their employers. It is reasonable for an employer to contractually restrict what an employee does or says publicly, even if it is not directly related to their job.
Think about the old 'morals clause' that came from the Fatty Arbuckle case (a classic sordid Hollywood tale). It caused all the studios to insert strict 'morals clauses' in their contracts with talent, and allowed the studios to terminate the employment if the actor engaged in acts of moral turpitude or brought disrepute on the studio. The reality whether Fatty was actually guilty of the crime he was accused of is almost beside the point (my recollection is that he was acquitted, but his career was destroyed). Now, fast forward from the early days of the 20th century to the 21st century. As Doc said, everything we write and say is there for the harvesting, now, or thirty years later. It can be used against you, or your employer. I don't begrudge an employer from imposing reasonable restrictions on employees- the blowback can be enormous, especially if there is an agenda against a person or company, or simply a reason to seize on the statements for leverage.
I'm offering this in a neutral way as a lawyer who has an enormous amount of respect for free speech, but also recognizes the commercial realities that exist to limit that speech when you are engaged in a commercial enterprise.
Think about the old 'morals clause' that came from the Fatty Arbuckle case (a classic sordid Hollywood tale). It caused all the studios to insert strict 'morals clauses' in their contracts with talent, and allowed the studios to terminate the employment if the actor engaged in acts of moral turpitude or brought disrepute on the studio. The reality whether Fatty was actually guilty of the crime he was accused of is almost beside the point (my recollection is that he was acquitted, but his career was destroyed). Now, fast forward from the early days of the 20th century to the 21st century. As Doc said, everything we write and say is there for the harvesting, now, or thirty years later. It can be used against you, or your employer. I don't begrudge an employer from imposing reasonable restrictions on employees- the blowback can be enormous, especially if there is an agenda against a person or company, or simply a reason to seize on the statements for leverage.
I'm offering this in a neutral way as a lawyer who has an enormous amount of respect for free speech, but also recognizes the commercial realities that exist to limit that speech when you are engaged in a commercial enterprise.
You live in Canada. Clearly you are not paying attention to the USA's elite liberal media setting the national conversation. Then again, I wouldn't expect you to understand.
Apples and oranges Amir. China among other countries has no pretense of freedom of speech. Our right to free speech is written in our constitution. You are now measuring things in degrees because yes, we have more freedom of speech than China, but I don't know if you could have come up with a worse comparison. Nobody in China expects to have freedom of speech and ditto for a bunch of other countries. We expect to have it in this country, we tell people we have it, and we can point to it in our constitution.
Well, just using our conversation as an example, Christian, we have one conservative spitting angry words at Democrats, liberals, the current administration...whatever we want to call the people who disagree with him, and we have one liberal calmly presenting evidence...I'm not really far to the left, but all things are relative and in this conversational context, yes, I am the proud liberal,. Why would I be angry? Because you're unable to make your case?
The truth of the matter, Christian, is that radical ideologues, at both extremes, are angry and vindictive. Really, can you blame them? It must be mightily frustrating to be so convinced that everybody else is wrong, and utterly incapable of providing any real evidence that you're right. Oh and the fact that no one but their own kind ever takes them seriously? That must really be a pisser.
In the meantime, the road away from the anger is right in front of them. All they have to do is turn off the radio. Read. Read both sides. Obtain knowledge, it neutralizes anger.
Tim
Last edited:
Gracias, Tim -- hehe
Would you prefer another source? The numbers are not political.
Tim
I do not believe we should go around trying to hurt people, but I don't think anyone's free speech should end where another's feelings begin. I think people need to toughen up and we, as parents have to raise children who don't come home crying because they were called a name or someone said something that made them feel bad. Just because someone says something they don't like, that does not mean it's abuse. Many parents in my generation [baby boomer and later generations] have terribly failed their children in this regard, among others. What ever happened to "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never hurt me?" While it is true there are some bullies, there is a majority of wimps.
I'm not entirely sure where freedom of speech ends, but it should end closer to not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded auditorium.
It's not a question of freedom of speech, Gary. Paula Deen was, is, free to use whatever words she chooses to. And she's not the victim of political correctness. She's the victim of corporate gutlessness. Honestly, I don't know what the woman did or did not say. But sponsors do not like controversy, and even if she is completely innocent, and they know it, they'd still drop her like a hot rock. They'll be back if it all blows over. Paula Deen will have become very rich on a big personality and some cooking skills if it doesn't. Celebrity is fragile, but the pay is great. Is it worth the risk? I haven't a clue.
Tim
Actually, it would be beneficial if citations were offered for all data presented as fact -- regardless of position
PC in Russia-
On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russianpresident, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, fromanywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law,then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'.
We better learn from the suicides ofAmerica, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture orthe primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians."
The politicians in the Duma gave Putin astanding ovation for five minutes
On February 4th, 2013, Vladimir Putin, the Russianpresident, addressed the Duma, (Russian Parliament), and gave a speech about the tensions with minorities in Russia:
"In Russia live Russians. Any minority, fromanywhere, if it wants to live in Russia, to work and eat in Russia, should speak Russian, and should respect the Russian laws. If they prefer Sharia Law,then we advise them to go to those places where that's the state law. Russia does not need minorities. Minorities need Russia, and we will not grant them special privileges, or try to change our laws to fit their desires, no matter how loud they yell 'discrimination'.
We better learn from the suicides ofAmerica, England, Holland and France, if we are to survive as a nation. The Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture orthe primitive ways of most minorities. When this honorable legislative body thinks of creating new laws, it should have in mind the national interest first, observing that the minorities are not Russians."
The politicians in the Duma gave Putin astanding ovation for five minutes
Of course the key word in these sources is "alleged." If Paula and Bubba Deen actually said all the things that are alleged in this one lawsuit brought by this one woman, it is indefensible. If not? Well, either way I wish Food Network and its sponsors had the courage to stick with her through the controversy, to wait for actual guilt, but they don't and that's not surprising.
To those jumping up and down, expressing their righteous indignation at Deen's unfair treatment by the left-leaning press, I'd remind them of how faithfully the press, even NPR and MSNBC, reported the IRS' targeting of conservative groups and the right's attempts to connect that to the administration for weeks, somehow missing, until just a few days ago, that the IRS was also targeting groups with the word "Progressive" in their names. I'd remind them of the Swiftboat scandal. Id remind them of many, many stories in the last couple of decades that attacked both sides of the aisle...
There is a problem with American journalism, but it's not that it has become elitist and one-sided. It is that it has become weak, undisciplined, more interested in the heat of the story than its accuracy.
Tim
Putin is 100% correct in this regard.
People should not immigrate to places in which they do not intend to assimilate.
It's too bad our leaders don't have the balls to say the same thing.
Similar threads
