You do not have a right to "not be offended".
I agree with the poster that said an employer should enforce consistent rules across the board but at the end of the day its the employers prerogative what they allow in the workplace.
You do not have a right to "not be offended".
I agree with the poster that said an employer should enforce consistent rules across the board but at the end of the day its the employers prerogative what they allow in the workplace.
The political correctness beast rears its ugly head.
Intersting history tidbit:
The term Political Correctness, and its method of employ, were developed by a german think thank in the 1920's, the same think thank that soon after gave birth to the Nazi party. The idea was to protect your own ideas as if they were law, and oppress opposing ideas as if they were criminal.
Aren't things called politically correct because government passes laws that regulate behavior with the assumption being that such regulation is to the good of society? In other words our secular society gets its virtues through the political process. And are we not living in a society of dynamic change, of ever greater development and inclusiveness of justice under law? Did we not free slaves and give women the vote or are we bound forever to traditions? Haven't we evolved because visionaries created the politically correct? And haven't we come kicking and screaming?
It's ever the same, no, the forces of light vs the Neanderthal?
When bigots are off topic they can be really fine people. It's only in the area of bigotry they are a particular menace. And despite them we seem to be making some progress.
It's ever the same, no, the forces of light vs the Neanderthal?
When bigots are off topic they can be really fine people. It's only in the area of bigotry they are a particular menace. And despite them we seem to be making some progress.
Intolerance Vrs. tolerance. Promoting tolerance Vrs. preaching intolerance. "People should all be treated equally" Vrs. "Agree with my beliefs or burn in Hell".
OH! HOW shall we chose between them?
OH! HOW shall we chose between them?
Its only your interpretation that they are intolerant. They didnt single out the other group at all, only created thier own which had an opposite viewpoint. If you want to offend others, you have to be able to get offended.
You mean like making gay marriage illegal? You conservative PC whiners need to look in the mirror...you're the worst offenders out there.
"Typical PC crap" is the assumption that every viewpoint has equal value and you can't judge one without judging them all. You present both sides in this issue like both sides have an equal right to be offended, and both sides are equally offensive...so either ban both or neither. But that's PC BS, not every viewpoint is just as good as every other viewpoint...and I'm going to go out on a limb and say that a club encouraging gay people to embrace their homosexuality is better than a group of conservative religious people condemning gay people. In the same way that I don't think a workplace should ban a Christian prayer group, but SHOULD ban an anti-Christian group of Islamic extremists. Your suggesting that there isn't really a right or wrong, and that all viewpoints deserve equal consideration, is probably the most PC viewpoint in this thread.
Not really. A better comparison would be whether or not a company should allow a "Straight people are evil" club started by gay employees. Or aren't you able to see the difference between a club concerned with supporting the behavior of its members and a club concerned with condemning the behavior of others?
Aha, you see? That's exactly what I mean. The PC way of thinking -- "a viewpoint I disagree with is not as good as the one I agree with, therefore it is not as worthy of being expressed". That's exactly the problem. Who are you to decide which club is "better"? Incidentally, I agree with you on which one is "better", but I fundamentally disagree with the notion that "currently liked" (PC) expression is more worthy than non-PC expression. It is exactly the non-PC expression that needs protection and needs to be allowed.
You've fallen into the trap, which was what I was trying to get at. Homosexuality is NOT more "PC" or more accepted than the alternative view, quite the opposite in fact. The anti-gay folks whine and complain about how accepted being gay is today, but if it is, I don't see it. Sure, more progressive folks and show business as a whole accepts it, but there is a HUGE and very vocal majority that despises gay people and what they do in the privacy of their own homes...if gays were as accepted as anti-gay folks suggest, we wouldn't be having gay marriage bans left and right, with only the courts trying to protect the civil rights of gay people. You've bought the "conservative Christians are SOOOO unfairly oppressed" shtick hook, line and sinker. But being PC doesn't mean embracing the most liberal viewpoint, it means embracing the common view so as to offend the fewest people. And right now, in this country, that means being against gay people.
Well, go into any corporate office in america. You can't say anything that can even remotely be seen as anti-gay, HR offices are terrified of lawsuits and will boot you out so fast your head would spin. That's what I mean when I say "pro gay acceptance" is the currently favored PC speech. Yes, a large portion of the population deep down resents and doesn't like the gay population, but heaven forbid you say something publically about it, you'll instantly be branded homophobic, a bigot etc etc. Same thing for race issues. That kind of PC madness is just creating more division, more resentment, more anger etc.
The workplace is not the place for political/religious/activism of any kind, do that stuff on your own time. But if they're going to allow the gay crap, then the fundies should be allowed to do their thing as well.
I'm not sure we'll ever agree on whether it's the pro-gay or the anti-gay forces that are more "oppressed", but I will agree that work is probably not the place for any of it. You are there to work, and given how divided people are over issues like gay rights, introducing it into the office is just asking for problems.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Two days to Godwin's law when it involves sexuality? I am impressed with ATPN's civility!
So remember, kids, God hates fags, and you should, too. If you don't, you still have to listen to those that do. Trying to shut them up only makes it worse for you.
I :heart: rhyming
people who are homophobic tend to be poorly educated and/ or not terribly bright. (there is a strong correlation between levels of education, intelligence, and acceptance of homosexuality). on the other hand, major corporations or organisations tend to recognise there are some very bright and creative people within the gay and lesbian communities and that it is important to have gay-friendly policies in order to attract these people as potential employees. so I would say it makes perfect sense to have very pro-gay policies in the work place, if your aim is to attract the best, most capable candidates.
Hate speech is using...
* Pacific instead of specific
* Axed instead of asked
* Excaped instead of escaped
* Conversate instead of converse
* Pacific instead of specific
* Axed instead of asked
* Excaped instead of escaped
* Conversate instead of converse
Two wrongs make a right? Besides, most gay marriage bans were on the public ballot, not passed by lawmakers.
America should just come to the realization that there is no such thing as "hate speech", only free speech. And I'll add to that, no such thing as a "hate crime" either, only crimes.
It's pretty dumb to call something dumb and not provide challenging reasons as to why you think so. I think what you mean is that you do not think his line of reasoning is correct. Could you please identify where he is wrong and why?
I, for example, strongly disagree with the notion that bigots are stupid. I think they are brilliant at hiding from themselves the true nature and reality of their bigotry. They are not what I would call intelligent, in it's pure form, however, but cunning in rationalizations. They are as good as they come at that.
It would be even dumber to sink to his (or your) level. But if you cant see why his post is dumb, maybe you are as much as him?
I've certainly never seen any studies or evidence to support that. You probably just pulled it from your butt.
Complete BS. Yes, there are talented people among gays just like there are talented people in any group. Companies don't "seek them out" or anything like that, they alienate just as many potential talented candidates with pro-gay policies as they would attract. It's about $$$ and reducing potential legal liability. The gay community is no more talented than any other group, and there is no more reason to seek them out than anyone else. The legal and PC (pr) environment is such that companies would rather not risk costs and bad pr.
I don't want my company to have "pro gay" or "anti gay" policies, I want them to not care one way or the other -- that stuff doesn't belong in the workplace.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 22K
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 384
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
Facebook
Twitter