patrick.net

LeonDurham says

Right--so that should be grounds for being fired, right?

Is it? How about the long screeds about White Male "entitlement" (aka actually knowing their job) we know was posted to that same forum?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Why not mention his job? How is his being the primary face of the organization as an athlete NOT relevant?

How IS it revelant?

LeonDurham says

How IS it revelant?

Kapernick, as an athlete, is THE focus of the organization's primary revenue generation stream, Football Games.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Is it? How about the long screeds about White Male "entitlement" (aka actually knowing their job) we know was posted to that same forum?

That's up to the employer right? I'm assuming he was an at will employee?

Or do you want the nanny state to decide who an employer can fire too.

LeonDurham says

Or do you want the nanny state to decide who an employer can fire too.

Tell you what, let's allow firing for any reason. You agree?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Kapernick, as an athlete, is THE focus of the organization's primary revenue generation stream, Football Games.

Yep--and why do you feel that's important to keep mentioning? That is my question. How does it affect the issue of protesting and an employer firing the employee?

You're comparing an employee using an internal forum set up for that purpose to discuss corporate culture, that nobody outside the company will see, with an entertainer deliberately making a political statement in front of paying customers at the prime revenue generating event.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Tell you what, let's allow firing for any reason. You agree?

I'm OK with the current laws regarding hiring and firing. How about we just abide by those?

LeonDurham says

I'm OK with the current laws regarding hiring and firing. How about we just abide by those?

Nah, because too many SJWs are getting into Big Tech, like they run Academia, and using it as a bully pulpit.

Don't confuse me with Rubin, Kristol, and Cuckservatives. Principles have to be balanced by Survival.

We don't let power companies or phone companies terminate user accounts for political speech they don't like, or as a result of astroturf demonization campaigns, so why allow Media Giants to do it?

He’s free to protest when not on employer clock.

LeonDurham says

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Maybe Politics needs to be added to non-discrimination laws. Tolerance!

Uh, isn't Kapernick protesting politics?

Exactly. Kapernick has the entire off-season to complain about "Whiteness"

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nah, because too many SJWs are getting into Big Tech, like they run Academia, and using it as a bully pulpit.

At least you're honest. People you don't like are doing things you don't like so therefore you are against it. It has nothing to do with right/wrong or logic. It's just you don't want people you don't agree with having more power.

FortWayne says

He’s free to protest when not on employer clock.

Which is what he's doing. But, yet, you still seem to have a problem with it.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Exactly. Kapernick has the entire off-season to complain about "Whiteness"

lol--nice try. How about you do a little research into the cause he is advocating.

LeonDurham says

At least you're honest. People you don't like are doing things you don't like so therefore you are against it. It has nothing to do with right/wrong or logic. It's just you don't want people you don't agree with having more power.

Nope, it's because I believe that institutions can be too powerful and need to balanced out/regulated. That's actually a core liberal principle.

Whereas those who pushed to ban Jones didn't watch him - but more importantly, didn't want anybody else watching him. They seek censorship and domination by default.

Important to remember all the University Anti-Speech Radicals today were once hired by Traditional Academics. Now that they dominate all the Peer Review Boards, they will never hire a Traditional Academic that isn't an Anti-Speech SJW Radical in their turn.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nope, it's because I believe that institutions can be too powerful and need to balanced out/regulated. That's actually a core liberal principle.

Yep--funny you don't seem to protest when powerful institutions advocate for your beliefs....

LeonDurham says

Yep--funny you don't seem to protest when powerful institutions advocate for your beliefs....

Let's have an example of that.

Kaepernik deliberately hijacked the prime revenue generating event to make a political statement while on the clock, a sporting event not centered on politics and people were upset that the game was hijacked in such a way. Kaepernick was free to protest in his own time, make a YouTube Channel or Blog, or use his future millions to fund his own MSNBC or Infowars.
Alex Jones ran a hugely subscribed political channel one would only view if you were looking for politics. Those opposed to his view wanted him completely censored so others couldn't encounter the ideas on his program.

By the way, my position is Popper's real position. Once anti-Free Speech forces get too powerful, it's okay to regulate them.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Whereas those who pushed to ban Jones didn't watch him - but more importantly, didn't want anybody else watching him. They seek censorship and domination by default.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Alex Jones ran a hugely subscribed political channel one would only view if you were looking for politics. Those opposed to his view wanted him completely censored so others couldn't encounter the ideas on his program.

Damn, 325 million people in the US and not a singe one can type in infowars.com instead of youtube.com. That' is really an amazing statistic. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Censored means you can't view something at all, not that you are too lazy to view it.

bob2356 says

Damn, 325 million people in the US and not a singe one can type in infowars.com instead of youtube.com. That' is really an amazing statistic. Thanks for sharing that with us.

Listen, granddad, folks my age and definitely far younger than I go to youtube and stream from one kind of shit to another. Nobody goes to 30 different websites anymore like 1996. Something like 3/4 of all internet traffic is the same half dozen websites, mostly social media, which is why Astroturf EFF didn't want the cable companies charging for them.

.Aphroman says

Alex Jones ran a hugely subscribed political channel one would only view if you were looking for politics.

Or Gay Frogs. While he didn't put it in PC terms, Endocrine Disruption of Aquatic Life by Pollution is a well observed mechanic in the World's Rivers.

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090118200636.htm

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Listen, granddad, folks my age and definitely far younger than I go to youtube and stream from one kind of shit to another

And you don't know how to type infowars.com?

LeonDurham says

And you don't know how to type infowars.com?

Nah, like most people under 60, I look at my notifications/recommendations, or select the channel from the left hand menu.

It's okay, Social Media is going to be made "Net Neutral".

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Nah, like most people under 60, I look at my notifications/recommendations, or select the channel from the left hand menu.

It's okay, Social Media is going to be made "Net Neutral".

lol--most people my age are easily able to navigate. They have things called search engines which may be able to help you find the pages you want to view.

LeonDurham says

lol--most people my age are easily able to navigate. They have things called search engines which may be able to help you find the pages you want to view.

Yep, but most people under 60 use a handful of sites. Chances are when you're on Youtube or Spotify, you tend to stay there and use that search box.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Yep, but most people use a handful of sites and navigate from there.

like google.com?

LeonDurham says

like google.com?

Well, you see, when those not collecting Social Security use this thing called "Spotify", they tend to search for the next album in the search box on Spotify, not open up Altavista in a new window and type in "Frampton Comes Alive"

Let me give you an example of how the spring chickens use the internet today.
www.youtube.com/embed/zLgeTtYwQ7o

Now, what people do next is look to the right side and see similar music. Maybe click on Rafferty's "Baker Street". If they see nothing they like, they'll go to the Search Box on top and type something they're thinking of. Maybe then, if they find nothing, they'll go over to Yahoo and look for it there.

And of course, more and more people are using mobile devices rather than desktops or laptops, and tend to use Site Specific Apps rather than a Browser, where the effect is more profound. You may have noticed Youtube has an App in the App Store on these Smarty Phone thingees.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Well, you see, when those not collecting Social Security use this thing called "Spotify", they tend to search for the next album in the search box on Spotify, not open up Altavista in a new window and type in "Frampton Comes Alive"

And it's the government's responsibility to make up for the laziness of racist, conspiracy theorists?

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Well, you see, when those not collecting Social Security use this thing called "Spotify", they tend to search for the next album in the search box on Spotify, not open up Altavista in a new window and type in "Frampton Comes Alive"

And, like I said, people my age (which I wager is younger than you) are well able to find what we want to see even if it's not on youtube.

LeonDurham says

And it's the government's responsibility to make up for the laziness of racist, conspiracy theorists?

Well, when we had only 4-5 channels on TV, there was Fairness Doctrine.

Maybe when there are 4-5 Apps, there needs to be Content Neutrality.

We all know how Liberals love the Fairness Doctrine and are enraged it no longer exists. Well until about two years ago.

Or, give companies a choice. They can allow wide and free content with no liability, or they can police the content. if the latter, they're legally liable for publishing it in Civil Court.