ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Sunday, April 17, 2016

Mailvox: when is firing justified?

CC asks the wrong question:
Assume an employer discovers he has in his employ a vocal and known racist. Assume the presence of that racist in his employ is hurting his business due to people choosing to no longer do business with him. Is he justified firing the racist?

The answer is to this rhetorical query is, of course, yes? So, is a person who opposes racism justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist?
I don't know why CC is even asking me this question. I believe in, and advocate, free association. That means that an employer can fire any employee for any reason he chooses.

So, I'm absolutely fine with an employer firing a racist simply for being a racist. What I would ask CC is this: is he likewise fine with an employer firing a black for being a black, a Jew for being a Jew, a woman for being a woman, a pregnant woman for being pregnant, a feminist for being a feminist, or a Communist for being a Communist? Because I support all of those hypothetical firings as well, on both logical grounds and on the basis of being protected by the Constitutional right of free association.

What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee. Remember, Ben Shapiro did not say that he would refuse to hire anyone who is a socialist, he did not say he would not do business with anyone who employs Jews, he said that racists should be hunted down.

That is not free association.  That is not eucivic behavior that is compatible with either civilized society or peaceful coexistence. Society can survive many things, but it cannot survive this aggressive ideological totalitarianism aimed at extinguishing the acknowledgement of observable reality. SJWism is both dyscivic and dyscivilizational.

What SJWs want is thought policing and enforcement. They want certain thoughts protected from criticism and certain other thoughts eliminated. A person who opposes racism can only be justified in calling on people to not do business with an establishment that employs a known racist insofar as anyone else is equally able to call on people not to do business with other establishments for any other reason.

If that's the war the SJWs want, that's precisely the war they'll get. But judging by their frightened response to something as minor as The Complete List of SJW, it seems unlikely that they are genuinely up for it. Because they know, as well as we do, that it is a war they will lose. Badly.

Labels: , ,

66 Comments:

Blogger Ahazuerus April 17, 2016 5:25 AM  

2nd last paragraph: "And that is...." ???

Not the case?

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 17, 2016 5:31 AM  

Ahazuerus wrote:2nd last paragraph: "And that is...." ???

Not the case?


Ad hominem.

Blogger Ahazuerus April 17, 2016 5:46 AM  

Retard!!!

Blogger Shimshon April 17, 2016 5:50 AM  

SJW hunting has become a new pastime of mine.

Blogger Aeoli Pera April 17, 2016 5:56 AM  

Ahazuerus wrote:Retard!!!

MOM!

Blogger SciVo April 17, 2016 5:56 AM  

Holy smoke. You have to listen to this Ralph Retort interview with the Social Autopsy founder. This is getting so weird. I was very against it, but just having Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper against them...

Well, maybe they just don't want competition? And of course they're crybullies, so they might be afraid of ending up on the list? But it makes me want to know more.

Blogger SciVo April 17, 2016 5:57 AM  

H/t Kona Commuter in the last thread.

Blogger Ron April 17, 2016 6:01 AM  

@Shimshon

You are an immigrant. It isn't for you or me to "hunt" anyone over here. They paid their dues, we didn't.

Anonymous 5343 April 17, 2016 6:08 AM  

The first question and the second are fundamentally different in this: the first assumes the presence of the racist is hurting business. Of course the owner of the business is justified in firing him.

But the second instance requires an 'outing' to get action. If you have to bring it to an employer's attention that his employee is hurting business or could potentially hurt business now that his racism is public knowledge, then it's clear he wasn't hurting business until you changed the circumstances.

And who defines racism? I have a clear definition in my head, but it's surely different from that of most SJWs. The masses have no clear idea at all and just follow the lead of the virtue-signaler making the most noise about it.

Blogger Shimshon April 17, 2016 6:09 AM  

@8 Ron, I live in Israel, so that makes me an expat. But I, along with my parents, were born and raised in the US.

Otherwise, I can't follow your logic. Do you disapprove of SJW List? I approve of it, and have been "hunting" for SJWs to add, and claim several additions to the list.

Blogger VD April 17, 2016 6:14 AM  

You are an immigrant. It isn't for you or me to "hunt" anyone over here.

This isn't about who belongs where. We'll take our allies where we find them.

Blogger Avraham April 17, 2016 6:16 AM  

The idea of Hobbes was that government is to protect civil society. Civil society depends on freedom of association. It is a communistic tactic to try to make firing bad workers impossible in order to bring down free society. Then they take over and then get rid of any workers they may please and send them far North to Siberia.

Blogger Durandel Almiras April 17, 2016 6:33 AM  

They know they'd lose if free association in the market place was permitted. Take Chick-fil-a for an example. They raised their voices and boycotted them and in turn many people came out in support of Chick-fil-a not flying the rainbow flag.

Every measure the SJWs support is not based on justice, but in securing an advantage for losers. When all the good will runs out, God help them as they reap their just desserts.

Blogger weka April 17, 2016 7:05 AM  

The irony is that in countries with employment laws you generally cannot be fired without warnings and there must be cause.

Which is why you hear about such firings in Australia, NZ and the UK. In the USA and Canada, you are just sacked.

If you are not making a contribution to your employer's bottom line, your job is on the line... including for SJWs. Because your employer is competing for business, frequently with countries that can and will undercut a USA price because the rest of the world has less regulations or lawyers.

Blogger Derek Kite April 17, 2016 7:51 AM  

Let's rephrase the question. What pain and suffering are you willing to personally endure in your quest to rid the workplace of people you disagree with?

Or put another way. If you come after me with the intent of ruining my life, I will do everything possible to ruin yours. If you have no limit to what you are willing to do, neither do I. If I can't work because of what you do, neither will you be able to.

No one would even ask that question unless they lived in some imaginary bubble where they imagine themselves protected and safe.

Blogger Valtandor Nought April 17, 2016 7:57 AM  

@14:

The irony is that in countries with employment laws you generally cannot be fired without warnings and there must be cause.

Which is true, but - when it comes to your personal views and your expression thereof - there can be nasty little bits about “bringing your employer into disrepute” and “engaging in activities that negatively affect your ability to carry out your duties to your employer”.

I haven’t heard of such a thing happening in our country, but I wouldn’t put it past an employer, faced with a screeching mob, to throw the employee to the wolves even where employment protection is a thing.

Anonymous aero April 17, 2016 8:01 AM  

Do you firer someone that does their job and performs it in an outstanding manner only because they have anti SJW characteristics?

Anonymous kfg April 17, 2016 8:11 AM  

" . . .send them far North to Siberia."

Murmansk is far north. Siberia is far east.

Blogger James Dixon April 17, 2016 8:21 AM  

> Because I support all of those hypothetical firings as well, on both logical grounds and on the basis of being protected by the Constitutional right of free association.

I think an argument can be made that the government can limit the right of free association for publicly traded corporations. After all, if you ask the devil for some benefit on this earth, don't be surprised if he asks for some small token in exchange.

I'm not sure if it's a convincing argument or not, but I'd be willing to consider it.

Anonymous kfg April 17, 2016 8:38 AM  

"I'm not sure if it's a convincing argument . . ."

It's not merely a convincing argument, it's axiomatic. However, for the past 100+ years the trend of the courts has been to treat corporations more and more as if they were natural persons and not merely legal persons.

Anonymous Eduardo April 17, 2016 8:45 AM  

I would fire David Hayter for being a secular librul!!! May Solid Snake's voice rest in peace...

Well unless David was actually doing the voice-over for Solid... Then I could live with him in the company as a temporary dude.

Anonymous Eduardo April 17, 2016 8:52 AM  

Dude how the heck communism ever "succeded"?

The more I hear about the less it seems viable... Could it be that communism is learned in school and let go???

Sort of like the white therefore racist thing, where white people find unacceptable that any other white person claims to not be racist, and actually claiming that is viewed as a racist behavior. It happened in my high school, so I guess it happens every where else because here in Brazil everrryy leftist copies the first world lefties.

Blogger peter blandings April 17, 2016 9:09 AM  

actually, freedom of association is not mentioned in the constitution. it was deduced from the freedom to peaceably assemble, which is a first amendment right. but with freedom in general, i think it is a valid deduction

Anonymous Eric the Red April 17, 2016 9:10 AM  

Is this a mistake: "..he did not say he would not do business with anyone who employs Jews" ? Since Shapiro is a Jew, it makes more sense to say "..he did not say he would not do business with anyone who does not employ Jews".

Regardless, the key idea is "What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee." This is nicely expanded upon by @9 5343. Who defines racism, who defines fascism, who defines fill-in-the-blank_phobia? The current answer reduces to "whoever is in power", because subjective definitions are no better than TPTB's target for their latest two-minute hate.

These SJW's are willfully blind and abysmally stupid. That's what makes this cultural warfare so absurdly frustrating. A society built on 'who, whom' inevitably leads to pogroms, gulags, holocausts, and purgings, with everyone a potential candidate for permanent removal.

Blogger Avraham April 17, 2016 9:13 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Avraham April 17, 2016 9:15 AM  

I stand corrected as kfg noted:
Murmansk is far north. Siberia is far East.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan April 17, 2016 9:50 AM  

Since only whites can be "racist" only whites can be fired, because add hominum or something.

Anonymous Philalethes April 17, 2016 10:26 AM  

@19. James Dixon

I think an argument can be made that the government can limit the right of free association for publicly traded corporations.

Actually, for all corporations, since a corporation is a creature of the State (the Golden Calf of modern times), thus subject to its rule. Which is why our entire society has become corporatized, so that everybody is brought under the State's jurisdiction. Do you have a "Social Security" number? If so, you are a ward of the State, Who naturally asserts the right to tell you what to do.

Blogger Nick S April 17, 2016 10:26 AM  

Since only whites can be "racist" only whites can be fired, because add hominum or something.

Since we've been reassured time and time again that there is no such thing as white culture, this can't possibly be true.

Blogger tz April 17, 2016 10:35 AM  

SJWs demonstrably and reliably destroy organizations more than any "racist". Would CC then concur that even one SJW or white-knighting or moderate compromise tweet ought to suffice for immediate dismissal?

Also, what does he mean by "racist"? Noting the refugees in Europe are pillaging (via native taxpayers) and raping? Noting "the bell curve" is hard science? We usually aren't talking a neo-nazi march in front of corporate headquarters.

Trump / Lewandowski provides an example of loyalty. If employers drop good employees over external matters easily, their bottom line behavior will be returned. Some places it is better to be expandable, others loyal.

Even racists are showing loyalty. SJWs eat their own,

Blogger Lovekraft April 17, 2016 10:44 AM  

The time is approaching where NOT firing sjws is going to be a major mistake. Right now, the left controls the narrative, so that firing a thought-criminal could effectively shut down further uppity-ness.\

But as the veil is lifted more and more and sjws are exposed for the crybullies they are, their attacks on people just exercising freedom of expression will begin to be actively resisted. Companies would do well to stand up to the racket called victimhood because more and more people are actively pushing back.

Blogger The Other Robot April 17, 2016 10:51 AM  

@18: Siberia does not include the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the Kamchatka Krai, the Magadan Oblast, etc, all of which are further east than Siberia.

Anonymous Gen. Kong April 17, 2016 11:05 AM  

All one has to do is notice the obvious to see that VD's observation above is true and has been so for a very long time. To cite a single example: The Nazi party and Nazi paraphernalia are outlawed in the EUSSR (ostensibly because they killed people), the Communists and associated paraphernalia are all quite legal (despite having executed far more people by several orders of magnitude than the Nazis). In France, one can be charged, fined and even jailed for mentioning mass murders of Communists because one has committed the crime of "minimizing the Holocaust". The word racist was hardly present in the English language before the advent of Marxists. The first major push for its usage was in the 1920s, following Trotsky's 1917 speech in NYC about how to destroy the United States. Racist is simply a code word for "white person" who does not grovel under the SJW jackboot. But, the book title says it all: SJWs always lie. Nothing new about this at all. It's like stating that water is wet. The problem is that after decades of indoctrination via public edumacayshun and the jujubox, one of Vox's other axioms - MPAI - is more apt than ever before.

Blogger Ron April 17, 2016 11:27 AM  

@Shimshon

I know. We live in the same city. Which is why I said "immigrant". It doesn't matter, I think I was wrong in any case.

Blogger Sheila4g April 17, 2016 12:02 PM  

"Because they know, as well as we do, that it is a war they will lose. Badly."

Totally aside from VOX's use of their tactics, twice as hard, to send them screeching, freedom of choice and association alone would disprove all they assert, which is why they're so terrified. Posit two specific restaurants in a city of mixed demographics. Precisely the same, excellent cuisine and atmosphere and affordable prices. One specifically advertises it will not serve known SJWs or Mohammedans or Negroes or Jews or Chinese or Mexicans (take your pick). The other is open to all. While initially there might well be a rush of the virtue-signalling gang to patronize the open entry establishment, plenty of others would quietly find they preferred the other. Absent a public crusade or legal cover for SJW tactics (public shaming, firing, destruction of property, threatening friends and relatives, etc.), the establishment that restricts its patrons will quietly flourish.

Consider the screeching that goes on whenever a restaurant says no children. Lots of offended snowflakes insisting their darlings ought to be welcome everywhere anytime, while plenty of others are relieved they might have the opportunity to dine out in peace. Same goes with the obese on airplanes - those who protest their having to purchase two seats are never the ones who have to sit beside them when they're occupying 1 3/4 but paid for one.

It's the old "Watch what they do, not what they say." They know that given a choice, far too many (in their estimation) would make the "wrong" choice, and they daren't let that happen because the narrative would implode.

Anonymous kfg April 17, 2016 12:07 PM  

". . . the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, the Kamchatka Krai, the Magadan Oblast, etc, all of which are further east than Siberia."

So is California. If you really want to punish people, send them there.

Anonymous Eduardo April 17, 2016 12:13 PM  

Actually the absurdly obese person in the airplane is just a victim... You know, the opressed people. While the owner of the airplane is the opressor.

Everything is analysed the same way, so in their heads all their doing is justice, it is that some of them enter in hysterical mode and they absolutely over react to this situation. They completely abandon any reasoning and go full bunny.

Anonymous BGKB April 17, 2016 12:14 PM  

Sadly I know the answer to is firing justified if a black whose job was taken by a computer who ended up just being a gopher, downloads a porn virus that knocks out most of the computers in the hospital for a week forcing people to use downtime procedures. I also know the answer for one that had 2 women come into the ER saying he sexually assaulted them only for him to tell security that they are hookers he picked up on his way home from work that are trying to shake him down for mo money. Those 2 will probably never retire since they likely don't work at work.

@Shimshon What do you think of Bern in Hell's Jewish outreach adviser?
http://www.jta.org/2016/04/14/news-opinion/politics/bernie-sanders-new-jewish-outreach-director-cursed-netanyahu-on-facebook

Blogger guest April 17, 2016 1:05 PM  

Vox--You are absolutely right about Ben. He even uses the word "homophobe" which is nothing but a thought crime and has nothing to do with behavior. I like Shapiro. It's just that I have lost my trust that he would defend me, if the time ever comes that I need aid. He has two different sides.

Blogger guest April 17, 2016 1:06 PM  

Vox--You are absolutely right about Ben. He even uses the word "homophobe" which is nothing but a thought crime and has nothing to do with behavior. I like Shapiro. It's just that I have lost my trust that he would defend me, if the time ever comes that I need aid. He has two different sides.

Anonymous Jack Amok April 17, 2016 1:22 PM  

But the second instance requires an 'outing' to get action...it's clear he wasn't hurting business until you changed the circumstances.

c.f. Eich, Brendon.

You make an excellent point. There is a world of difference between an employer who fires someone they don't wish to associate with and an employer forced into choosing between his business and his employee because outside agitators have initiated a harassment campaign against his employee over the employee's politics.

The first is an individual expressing individual preferences. The second is mob action. SJWs prefer mob action. They won't for long. They prefer it now because the rest of us have been too civilized to use it for a few generations, but the dyscivic SJWs were happy to use it and it gave them an asymmetric warfare advantage.

SJWList.com is notice that advantage is gone.

Blogger The Other Robot April 17, 2016 1:25 PM  

Meanwhile, more rope is needed in Austria so please send some.

When is hanging justified?

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 2:35 PM  

@6 SciVo

Holy smoke. You have to listen to this Ralph Retort interview with the Social Autopsy founder. This is getting so weird. I was very against it, but just having Zoe Quinn and Randi Harper against them...
---

I'm actually beginning to worry about the SocialAutopsy people. They might be in for a world of harassment if Randi Harper gets after them.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 2:42 PM  

@15 Derek Kite

Let's rephrase the question. What pain and suffering are you willing to personally endure in your quest to rid the workplace of people you disagree with?
---

I think another part of it is the SJWs complaints are usually not about something illegal. It's about their hatred and malice for something they believe you stand for. So they can't get you canned from your job, and they will then try and get you to resign. That's what the twitter mobs and such are part of, if I understand it correctly.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 2:45 PM  

@17 aero
Do you firer someone that does their job and performs it in an outstanding manner only because they have anti SJW characteristics?
---

Here in the US, if you're not some protected minority, you can be fired for anything, or for nothing.

Pretty sure I've seen what you describe happen, where they took a very productive department and canned the lot of them. Then brought in a bunch of SJWs and wasn't much longer the entire place went on the sales block and was gobbled by another company.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 2:50 PM  

What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee.
--

This reminds me of the current situation with all these Hollywood and others boycotting some southern states because of the religious freedom or bathroom laws.

Anonymous peppermint April 17, 2016 3:12 PM  

> Assume an employer discovers he has in his employ a vocal and known racist.

The employer is then required to fire the racist or face treble damages under the Civil Rights Act of 1964

> Assume the presence of that racist in his employ is hurting his business due to people choosing to no longer do business with him.

If anyone claims to feel harassed, the employer could face an easily won lawsuit under the Civil Rights Act - easily won because who on the jury would dare go on record defending a racist?


> Is he justified firing the racist?

This is the mechanism by which the Overton window has been forced to the left over the past 50 years. It's ridiculous for liberals to pretend not to know it and disgusting for cuckservatives to conveniently forget. These facts are pretty hard to miss for people who think things to the right of the Overton window.

Anonymous Carl Crowe2 April 17, 2016 3:29 PM  

"is he likewise fine with an employer firing a black for being a black, a Jew for being a Jew, a woman for being a woman, a pregnant woman for being pregnant, a feminist for being a feminist, or a Communist for being a Communist?"

No, Im not fine with this. The Racist, Black, Feminist, Communists, etc, assuming they did nothing to hurt my business, have given no reason to be fired. Firing them for who they are and can't change (black, Jew, etc) or because of what they think is the worst kind of discrimination.

However, if the communist, Jew, Black, etc were publicly and knowingly doing or saying something for public consumption that hurt my business, then yes. They can be rightly fired.

"What is not fine, however, is those who are not involved attempting to put pressure on the employer to fire the racist, the black, the Jew, the woman, the Communist, etc. because they do not approve of the employee"

Now suppose I am a good customer, but will no longer associate with your business because your racist employee is publicly denouncing Blacks and Jews and doing so for public consumption. It sounds like you are saying it is wrong 1) for me to go to you (the owner) and tell you that I will not do business with you any longer because of the actions of this employee. It also sounds like you are saying that it is wrong to tell my friends they should no longer do business with you because of this employee.

I think the person talking to the owner and their friends are acting properly. Surely it's ok for the customer to let the owner know why they will not do business with you while the racist is still working for you. Surely that kind of action is an appropriate response.

"That is not free association. That is not eucivic behavior that is compatible with either civilized society or peaceful coexistence. Society can survive many things, but it cannot survive this aggressive ideological totalitarianism aimed at extinguishing the acknowledgement of observable reality."

It's clearly free association what the customer is doing. They are choosing not to associate with the company. And of course society has long survived public attempts to disassociate with people for who they are, let alone for what they do. Consider the sex offender lists that are public. Consider the various public attempts to ostracize blacks and jews in the U.S. throughout our history. Consider the various attempts to rid society of public and private displays of affection by homosexuals.

Blogger weka April 17, 2016 3:34 PM  

Peppermint: If you use the Civil Rights Act you would have to PROVE I'm racist. In court. Under cross examination. I don't resign. Fun for all.

Big Gay Koran Burner: Not had anyone trash the computers here... yet. But we are still paper based, and given the current competence of techs, that gives me a sense of comfort. But I have been involved in getting incompetents fired. Takes two years. And constructive dismissal is illegal: we had to put the people on gardening leave.

Blogger rumpole5 April 17, 2016 4:13 PM  

IS a person a "racist"? To paraphrase a famous defrocked lawyer, I guess that depends on the definition of the word "is" or perhaps "racist". Most folks assume that the word "racist" necessarily includes a component of malice toward a biological set of humans. That is the problem. What they need to understand is that it is possible to believe in human biodiversity without animus toward anyone. for instance, the planner who believes in human biodiversity might think it prudent to fund increased positions in mental retardation training (or high IQ enrichment positions) to a school serving racial groups known to have higher numbers of individuals requiring those services. That is racist, but it does not show malice. In fact the anti racist bureaucrat who would insist that all schools have the same number of positions for special services, per capita, regardless of the likely needs of the students, would be the one showing animus.

Anonymous peppermint April 17, 2016 4:14 PM  

Weka: no, the plaintiff needs to prove the microaggression took place to win the suit against your employer. But your employer will settle out of court to avoid being known as a hostile environment and facing closer scrutiny of hiring decisions and possible microaggressions at work. You get fired for cause, so no unemployment benefits, and have a hard time getting hired elsewhere when you explain the circumstances of your firing, or your future employer googles you.

That's how Americans were browbeaten into letting men who become women through the magic of saying they are walk into a women's locker room and expose themselves to any little girls present, like in the GG Allin song. And sexually mutilating prepubescent children because they have been coached into requesting sexual mutilation.

Anonymous Eric the Red April 17, 2016 5:30 PM  

@48 Carl Crowe2
- Your definitions are not my definitions as to who is racist or what is racism; your definitions are politically subjective, not morally objective.

- A charge of racism is now nothing more than a political cudgel wielded by whoever has the power, not by who is morally superior. It can change at a moment's notice depending on who the powerful decide to punish at that moment, and nobody is invulnerable.

- Any employee should be innocent until proven guilty by an impartial process, not by a hyperbolic gaggle of zealous virtue-signalling political thugs.

- A shrill minority does not necessarily constitute any significant consumer block; constant marketing research is always required. This is part of the impartial process that should establish proof of guilt.

- Until that shrill minority started their political posturing, there was no indication of lost business in the first place. Their intent is just a power play to smear the reputation of the business, and so is extortion against a third party in pursuit of punishing their political enemies.

- If any organization is taking federal money, then it is de facto an extension of the federal government, and by the First Amendment cannot squelch or punish in any way an individual's free speech.

- Freedom of association is weighed in conjunction with freedom of speech and the right to bear arms; putting it up instead against some nebulous right to not be offended is unConstitutional, and anyone arguing otherwise is not an American regardless of where they were born.

Anonymous Mr. Rational April 17, 2016 5:36 PM  

I wonder if shrieking SJW mobs demanding someone be fired could be held liable for damages?  Perhaps enabling legislation could make it easier.  This would make it VERY interesting, as the target would immediately be able to subpoena Twitter, etc. to unmask the members of the mob and put the shoe on the other foot.

Blogger weka April 17, 2016 6:15 PM  

@peppermint. I live nit in the USA the name gives a hint.

In the USA if I was doing pretty much what I do now removing Ne would blow up an essential department in my trade school leading to loss of the same. No one really wants to be an academic.

And yes I have tenure. Bur different rules here. Bigger risks exist.

The Civil Rights Act has made a tyranny. One I can avoid. The USA ilk need a passport more than gun and a plan to leave if the converged win.

Anonymous Satan's Hamster April 17, 2016 6:36 PM  

"The USA ilk need a passport more than gun and a plan to leave if the converged win."

To where?

Antarctica?

There's nowhere left to run, dude. We're down to fight or die, which is why the tide is finally turning against the SJWs.

Anonymous peppermint April 17, 2016 6:56 PM  

> I wonder if shrieking SJW mobs demanding someone be fired could be held liable for damages?

Yes, it's called tortious interference. Theoretically, Pax Dickinson could sue Anil Dash for tortious interference in his business relationship with Business Insider, however, I'm not a lawyer, and lawyers need to eat, so I don't know what case law there is on this subject or whether a real lawyer would be caught dead trying to defend a racist.

Anonymous BGKB April 17, 2016 7:06 PM  

Big Gay Koran Burner: Not had anyone trash the computers here... yet. But we are still paper based, and given the current competence of techs, that gives me a sense of comfort.

When the power goes out or the computers go down you have to do it on paper and later put in on computers. When I did 13week healthcare traveler assignments the power went out in one place twice in 8 nights (summer hot high demand) and I thought I must have been in the 3rd world. No offense Were puppy.

"The USA ilk need a passport more than gun and a plan to leave if the converged win."

Need a foreign passport under a fake name. Estaban Guapo from __________

Blogger tz April 17, 2016 7:17 PM  

@48 - You go too far. "Publicly denouncing..." is no part of the argument. If you go through whatever part of the employee roster that is publicly available (and few below the CxO level are), and then comb their tweets and Facebook for something which you can put the worst light on, then threaten a boycott, you are the problem. You are a spoilsport, a gossip, and are a sinner casting stones.

You are under the cover of pseudonymity. Open up and let us comb the records to see how pure you are. What have you to fear if you have no sin? Why stay beneath the cover that would expose the supposed accused racist in your example? Are you not proud of your words and deeds? If so, exposing them ought to be no problem. If there is something shameful, then how are you beter than the racist or others you talk about?

Anonymous Eric the Red April 17, 2016 7:46 PM  

- @56 peppermint: So the accuser must first prove that the accused is indeed a racist by some morally objective standard, which with their politically subjective definitions they could never do. Also, Business Insider should sue because they are being extorted with the threat of smearing their reputation.

- @57 tz: "..a spoilsport, a gossip, and a sinner casting stones..". ...And also an extortionist thug of a political mafia.

Anonymous peppermint April 17, 2016 7:59 PM  

Listen carefully. Being a racist isn't a tort, so no one will try to prove that you're a racist. Racial harassment is, and knowingly having employees who might commit racial harassment (hostile environment / hostile workplace) opens you up to treble damages. Hostile environment can include the most trivial of what are now known as microaggressions.

To sue your employer for your unemployment benefits, you need to prove that you're not racist, which is even harder than them proving you are. The "I have a Black friend" defense has been under attack by the Left for at least the past decade.

Remember, this system browbeats people into going along with the sexual mutilation of their own children. If there was a way out, it would have been found by now.

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 8:11 PM  

@53 Mr. Rational

I wonder if shrieking SJW mobs demanding someone be fired could be held liable for damages?
---

Take DongleGate for instance. The company fired Adria Richards for the incident affecting the company itself.

http://archive.is/Vmvk2

Even though they didn't disagree with her complaint, they didn't like it hurting the company bottom line - and that is why they let her go.

And then you the one jokester who got canned.

I wonder if either of them would have been able to sue for damages against the Twitter mob? Or even against each other?

Legal stuff hurts my brain

Blogger Were-Puppy April 17, 2016 8:17 PM  

@59 Eric the Red

Also, Business Insider should sue because they are being extorted with the threat of smearing their reputation.
---

They didn't bother with threatening extortion. They went right to the smear campaign.

http://sjwlist.com/Firing_of_Pax_Dickinson

Anonymous Eric the Red April 17, 2016 9:45 PM  

@60 peppermint:
Microagressions, harrassment, hostile, climate: without associated tactile actions and resultant bodily or financial harm, all of these are completely subjective. How can any court system pretend to define them objectively? Is there any loss of real income? Has anyone been sent to the hospital in an ambulance? I doubt it. How can any set of laws that purports to represent justice, be built upon the shifting sands of personal feelings? Has personal responsibility been declared null and void by the legal system? Lastly, how the hell did subjective personal feelings ever come to legally trump the Bill of Rights?

Obviously the system is so corrupt, so broken that it can never be reformed, it can only be totally replaced, and those who instigated it expelled from society.

Anonymous Eric the Red April 17, 2016 9:56 PM  

@60..
One more thing...
being called a racist should still be within the realm of a slanderous accusation, and therefore a tort. Moreover, that should be ajudicated PRIOR to, in order for its outcome to be used as the basis of, any hostile workplace action.

Anonymous jdgalt April 18, 2016 1:20 AM  

So you don't think that we should campaign as consumers for employers to refuse to hire SJWs? Or boycott those that do? Both seem fine ideas to me.

Anonymous Lord T April 18, 2016 10:41 AM  

They are the school bully who doesn't like it when their victims fight back.

and like all school bullies eventually they meet people that don't put up with them.

That time has come.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts