not freedom of speech

Sorry to throw you in the mix. It was meant for public and international corporations especially where foreign influences like China are heavily involved.

 

When it becomes hate speech aimed at you as a condition of employment?

What if the company wanted to make employees sit through training saying that blacks are inferior and will be treated as such as a condition of employment?

I can't think of a company I ever worked for that at the least did not frowned upon discussions of religion or politics or such on the job in the workplace because those are sensitive subjects and can cause discourse in the workplace an effect the quality of the workplace. Unfortunately I no longer have any copies of my workplace handbooks since I retired so I could look up the exact phrasing. If I'm in a bar, or a park or such and someone is talking as such and I don't like I can leave. Not some much in a workplace.

This is now the government telling a private company it cannot do so as a condition of employment require people to sit through such about race. We'll have to see what the courts say about it.

 

Ya see law says nothing about hate speech as that is already covered by other hate speech laws. It talks about corporate training that “makes people feel discomfort or distress. ”

The founding fathers put speech in the First Amendment to assure that speech was not regulated because it made others stressed or uncomfortable.

This is an issue of government control of discussion. Problems are seldom solved by telling people the may not discuss them.

 

Not everybody who believes in the CRT bogeyman is dumb, but a strong correlation would not surprise me. Smart and greedy conservatives need social issues to get the dumbs ones riled up enough to vote. But propaganda can fool people who are smart too if they get lost in their tribalism.

 

Yeah all those black people hating on it are racists...

 

To Mr. "Quality education," you completely misread my post-- I guess your school's curriculum didn't stress reading comprehension? There is no indication of my being "miffed" about your education, or anything else. In fact, if your posts are any indication of your school's quality, I am not even, in the least, envious. BTW, when your meaning is "you are," it is spelled: you're.

To actually address my post, not your delusions, I had said that I would absolutely support the nationwide institution of the type of history education, which you described (but which I doubt that you really got, in the primary grades):

DEFinning said: ↑
... I will simply, and truthfully, say that I would be all in favor of the type of thorough historical background, you maintain was part of your own educational foundation; however, with rare exception, this is absolutely NOT the average American child's school experience; and certainly not the public school experience, for any significant number of students. [End quote]


Did you not learn the meaning of "favor," in your elite school? Again, you failed to answer my twice-put question, but from your answer's contrasting of your own school with, "public schools," I am going to hazard the guess that it was a private school, which you attended. If that is correct, there is a very high probability that it cannot "be demonstrated that the cost of (your) education was likely the same, or less that what is spent per head in public schools." You do understand the meaning of the word you used, yourself-- demonstrated-- don't you? I ask, because you did not demonstrate this, or anything, save that-- while in the process of bragging about how fine was your own education-- you felt that, "Kids aren't learn?" was a proper, English sentence. Or did you attend somewhere, in which pidgin English, is the lingua franca? Elsewise, your writing is "an awful indictment," of the results of the "education system," of which, you are a product.

There are practical considerations that also make your implication, that I am choosing current practice, over what you had outlined, a fallacious claim. Were you not aware that school policy & curriculum, for the most part, is decided state by state, and district by district (as referenced in the post, to which you are ostensibly replying)? So you are talking about a re-tooling of all history education, in the U.S. which-- in case you've already forgotten-- I would support. But that is a very long term project, with no assurances of ever becoming a reality.

And what's even more ghastly, still, is that you just pulled all of that, out of your ass. So, I put your self- proclaimed mental acumen, and grasp of so much that is beyond the reach of the average person, to this challenge: show us from where, in my post, you derive your ideas about what I would do, stated in the quote, immediately above.

Once again, you are demonstrating the kind of reading comprehension, at which you & I both would shake our heads, to know was being considered sufficient for a H.S. diploma. I said nothing at all about teaching children my "ideology," unless you consider the idea that racism is not a good thing, to qualify as an ideological belief-- is that the case? And that you would make the accusation that I would "torture the kids with the victimization that ( I ) feel they deserve," is utterly outrageous! You have no basis whatsoever, for that remark, which makes this nothing but an ad hominem attack.


Is that how brilliant you are-- that you cannot compete even a couple of rounds in a debate, without resorting to wholesale bullsh#t, baldface misrepresentation, & utter fabrication of strawman arguments? Such an intellect could only look grand, in comparison to the level of integrity possessed, by it's wielder.


The rest of your post-- as amazing as it is that this is possible-- falls off even further into fantasy land.Though it is clearly a waste of time to discuss anything with you, since you are largely unresponsive to posters with whom you disagree-- or is only the ones who are too smart for you?-- and instead simply make up, out of broadcloth, your opponent's views, I will include this, just to set the record straight. This is my actual view, which you are claiming that you describe, above, in RED.

DEFinning said: ↑
...My point, then-- just to underline it, for you-- is that your own, highly unusual experience, has no bearing on the importance of adding anti-racism education to the system, we currently have. That is not to say, that I might not, also, take issue with some of the techniques that are being employed. My sense is that this is not a well- coordinated effort but, rather, is being treated state by state, addressed in each school district, uniquely, and implemented at the school- by- school level, if not even based upon the discretion of every individual teacher, within those schools. Some national guidelines, at least, would probably be helpful. But I do not feel I have a comprehensive understanding of how this anti- prejudice education is presently being employed throughout the American educational system, to be at all qualified to appraise that overall effort; nor, do I believe, that you possess those qualifications.

[End]

 

This was innevitable when we said employers couldn't discriminate by race. Slippery slopes matter.

It'd be my preference if everyone had the right to always speak their mind and voluntarily associate (or not) with whomever we wish, but that died long ago in the workplace. Now everything has to be regulated via bureaucracy. And its going to keep getting worse.

 

The day that liberals stop assuming that conservative opposition to their agenda on social issues is based on anything other than legitimate differences over the direction of our culture, history, traditions, values the better discourse and civil dialog will be. There are conservatives in the GOP who see the various assembled social issues as their primary issues not secondary to other conservative issues. It’s time to stop the belittling of the social conservatives in our multiracial working and middle class coalition

 

Bit of a broad brush here, but I'm not going to stop belittling lies and senseless bigotry even when genuinely believed. White nationalists and theocrats shouldn't be hated, but their beliefs and agenda should be.

 

The thing is, I don’t know any white nationalist or theocrats.

 

Just the extreme end, but one could still be influenced by them via fox news. Seems odd to complain when repubs throw around the word socialist where few actually exist. Most of the time they mean socialist influence rather than die-hard socialists. Or are being hyperbolic for political points.

If you were to advocate for a dedicated time in school for prayer, for example, that would be theocratic influence away from our founding principles. If you mandate a denial or gag order of bad things that have happened in the past due to racism, that would be in the direction of white nationalism even if one is not fully on board with them.

 

Your reply seems not to follow, from the OP. According to that-- though the bill, apparently applies to schools, as well, according to Alwayssa-- this bill only targets corporate training, not workplace conversation. So just on that point, your argument is moot, unless you make no discrimination between free speech in public-- which, of course, people are free to ignore, or even walk away from-- and speech from an employer, as part of required training, for the employee. If you cannot differentiate between those two things, I would suggest there is a deficit, there, in your interpreting concepts in frameworks other than black- and- white ones. Reality, of course, often does not strictly fit into this binary model.

As a memory- refresher, this is from the OP:

To just treat another aspect of your stated, idealized preference, the workplace is a place, obviously, of work. That there might be some controls put on the speech of employees, who must work together, seems a very reasonable constraint. For example, you probably would not wish to work under a boss who always referred to you as "ass***e," or "gaywad." This kind of thing could be interpreted as a "hostile work environment." Are you in favor of making the speech of employers, and fellow employees, immune from any sort of regulation? Because that would then counteract any anti- discrimination, hiring laws; an employer who did not wish to hire minorities, could merely employ a constant barrage of racial epithets, for example, every time they spoke to, or about, that employee, in an effort to make the employee quit. Afterward, the employer would be free of the employee that he'd been bigoted against, free from any legal action against him, and free even to participate in government work, which was conditional upon the hiring of minority workers, even though the employer had driven all those minorities out the door, once hired, with abusive language. Would you view that situation, as, "Free at last, free at last, thank God almighty...?"

 

What high-minded B.S., from the same person with the current thread,"The Progressive Mindset is Evil." Below, are excerpts from your OP's, quoted link:

And that, you try to portray as a Conservative who is NOT assuming that Liberal opposition to the Conservative "agenda on social issues is based on anything other than legitimate differences over the direction of our culture..."

If that is not breathtaking hypocrisy, then it is stupifying blindness to one's own clear intentions.

But there is, still, more, to your esteemed writer's, hate- filled diatribe. He goes on, in the very next paragraph, to depict the idea of a non- racist America, as exemplifying the Progressives, doing "their damnedest to destroy," "all the progress our species has made, throughout human history."

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-progressive-mindset-is-evil.597997/


Sure, just a simple difference of opinion. Nothing to impede political discourse, or detract from civil dialog-- the way that the Liberals do, with the far more slanderous impugning of character, they employ. What's so bad about being told that you are trying to destroy all human progress, made throughout history? The Left says far worse things, about the Right, isn't that so? I mean...they called Trump "orange." It doesn't get much worse than that.

But maybe you could fill us in on all the inflammatory dialog, employed by "liberals." I will just point out, though, that if you are endorsing the notion that a nation in which children "are not judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character," is undermining the accomplishment of all human history, then there is nothing but fact, in liberals calling that attitude, "racist."

 

That is a fair point. So is mine. The issue of free speech is often complicated. For me it is simple. The government is banned from censoring speech. It is not banned from delivering the consequences of what is said. The government can't and doesn't stop anyone from slandering another. But it certainly conducts the trial when someone is sued for slander. If you separate the censorship from the consequences I think you get close to what the founders intended. They wanted people to say what they wanted particularly about government. They didn't want to excuse that free speech from hurting others. Common sense rules when exercising one's freedom of speech.

 

We already have laws that limit speech in the workplace. These laws are designed to prevent a hostile work environment. At my workplace for example, you can cannot tell off-color jokes. Nor can you spread gossip about other employees. You cannot make racist statements. And the list goes on. We may be disciplined for doing these things that create a hostile work environment up to and including being fired.

We take annual training on workplace behavior.

No one complains that their free speech is being infringed upon. The expectation is that the workplace should be free from discrimination and harassment and that everyone should be treated respectfully and professionally.

There is no reason that I can see why anyone of any color should be subjected to mandatory training in the workplace that is intentionally or inadvertently designed in such a way that it leaves an employee feeling guilty or ashamed or somehow inadequate just because of the color of their skin. If the training does do that, then the training itself is creating a hostile work environment.

So if this legislation prevents that from happening, I don’t have a problem with it.

 

Funny I got exactly the same education experience he did and in the heart of the Bible Bible. In the end to be a rational thinking human being is to find racism abhorrent. In the end Nitzche was right after a fashion those who would make monsters of others succeed only in making of themselves monsters.

 

That or he's telling leftists to take their con jobs elsewhere. It is not my employers job to teach me to be a civilized human being.

 

Yet you ignore the lies and senseless bigotry upon which CRT and the 1619 project are based, interesting.

 

Sorry Fox has neither white nationalists nor theocrats.

 

These two statements seem contradicting, though I know you did not mean for them to be. That is, I assume that your 2nd sentence was meant in support of your first: meaning that to think of others in a racist way, would be like making a monster of oneself, which people would, presumably, not want to do.

However, notice that this idea can also be used to shield those who are most deserving of the title "monster," from the appropriate judgement of their atrocities. There is clearly a world of difference between making a monster of someone, based only on their skin color, or any other physical or cultural characteristic, not on an individual basis, but held in common by a large group, as opposed to seeing some particular person as a monster, based on their own actions.

 

You know of ourse that your last paragraph is nonsensical claptrap, right?

 

Try reading the quoted part of the link, in the OP (see link at bottom). That is exactly what it says. Or reread my post, because I quoted it, in its correct order, & in its entirety.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/the-progressive-mindset-is-evil.597997/


Here, I'll save you the trouble:

XXJefferson#51 said: ↑
I try not to spend a lot of time focused on the enemies of America, but they are plentiful, and a growing percentage of them reside within the United States. Hell, a lot of them are in Congress, the courts, or the White House. But most of them live in academia, many times in between stints in government. They are actively working to make this country worse.

The progressive mindset is one of, quite honestly, evil. Think of all the progress our species has made throughout all of human history, and we're watching these people do their damnedest to destroy it.

Nothing exemplifies this more than the modern left and Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech. King lays out, in terms so basic even Joe Biden can understand them, his desire for the country to get past the color of a person's skin.

"I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" is one of the most influential lines ever spoken.

The left is voiding their bowels all over it on a daily basis….
[end of OP quote]

How else could you interpret that? Saying, in effect, the silent part, out loud?

 

Your interpretation of what he said is borderline insane. It can only make sense in a peculiar world view in which race dominates everything else and such an attitude is by definition racist and in such a world the only thing that can ever change is the color of the skin of the person sitting in the cat bird seat. And that sir is a horrible way to decide anything.

 

More insanity. Of course the two statements absolutely agree. Who is the bigger the slave or the slave owner who first dreamed up racism as a emotional defense of the awful institution by which he benefited. Two things had to happen and did happen before racist dogma as it currently exist came to be. 1st the abolition if indentured servitude, and second the rise and increasing popularity of the abolitionist movement in American politics.

 

How could you possibly know this?