In a packed auditorium at the University of Massachusetts on Monday night, Breitbart Tech editor Milo Yiannopoulos, comedian Steven Crowder, and former philosophy professor Christina Hoff Sommers fought off a crowd of student protesters who continuously shouted in an attempt to silence their right to speak.
please post patnet data you may already have on the percentage of patnet visitors who never post. (or almost never) It would be interesting to know just how much time they spend here lurking if that's not too much trouble.
479 users posted comments in the last year.
there are 21,824 registered users, but that's accumulated over more than 10 years.
there are normally something like 5,000 distinct ip addresses per day in the logs. a lot of them are directed here from google because of the housing crash post:
Hating the different races, sexes, transgendered, Muslims, etc is not a political point of view.
i'd bet you money that if you asked the people you accuse of being "haters" they would say they don't hate anyone, and that you yourself are the one who introduced the term "hate" because it gives you an easy way to not actually listen to the points they are trying to make.
accusing people of "hate" is pretty much the same thing as accusing them of being a nazi. all rational discussion ends right there.
someone belonging to a different political point of view doesn't "poison the workplace" unless the other workers are political bigots and can't stand for anyone to believe differently than them and then they are the problem not the other person.
see how your own argument works perfectly against yourself?
What sort of protections from firing would you like to see? Should someone be able to say absolutely anything and I still have to let them work for me even though it would now poison the workplace (i.e. the individual hates all -----s and -----s work at your company) environment?
i'd like to see employees protected while exercising freedom of speech on their own time just the same as they are protected while exercising freedom of religion on their own time.
if you want to be consistent, you should argue that employers should not have to let a jew/christian/muslim/whatever work for them, because it would "poison the workplace" as you put it.
workers can be let go without cause as long as it can't be proven that they weren't let go because of race, religion, sex or other protected class
so how exactly is freedom of religion different from freedom of speech?
they are both in the bill of rights. why is it that you can not fire someone because of a publicly announced religious belief, but you can fire someone because of a publicly announced political belief?
ah, so companies can decide to fire all democrats, simply for no reason other than their political beliefs? or they can fire everyone who supports racial integration, or gender equality?
when you have your employer watching what you say on your own time, you in actual fact do not have freedom of speech.
almost everyone has to work for someone else. only the rich do not.
so tatupu70 and astronut97 seem to be saying that only the rich deserve actual free speech. the rest of us damn well better bend with whatever the current political winds are if we want to eat. some freedom that is, thanks very much.
patrick.net is an anonymous forum exactly because we do not yet have protection from employer or university harassment for political views. please recommend patrick.net to your friends (and enemies!)
i asked exactly what in specific violated their terms, and was again given a complete non-answer:
As stated in our previous communication, upon a review of your Associates account we have determined that you are not in compliance with the Operating Agreement that governs your participation in the Associates Program. We have closed your Associates account and you will not receive further payment of advertising fees.
You are not in compliance with Participation Requirement Number 1 and the Operating Agreement because the sites you are sending traffic from contain either sexually explicit, violent, libelous/defamatory materials or promotes discriminatory or illegal activities. Sites that include this content are considered unsuitable for the Associates Program.
funny they still refer to me as "Dear Associate" when i am clearly neither! lol
Ignore must be broken then, because I think a while back, Patrick made it so that an ignored person can not see your thread and if they try to post to it they get a message denying their post. So yeah, I think it's broke, or else Patrick changed it again after that.
if you are ignoring someone, they should not be able to comment on any of your threads.
so if errc is ignoring ironman, then ironman should not be able to comment here.