Bigoted online posts from Tucker Carlson's co-writer

[CoraSpia]

Which is why protections for political opinion need to be built into equality legislation.

Which only means that stores do not have the ability to deal with boycott. Whether we like it or not, stores are affected by the actions of their employees on social media. It is why they often go through someone's social media when they hire a person.

Uhm...good?
So they become less effective at chilling speech.

[CoraSpia]

I think it's unreasonable to expect people to work as unpaid brand ambassadors off the job. What happens on your social media is none of your employers business.

Where do you draw the line there ? Is your employer allowed to fire you if you spend your day off standing in front of their office yelling obscenities at minorities ?

Are you on their property?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

If you go on a rant on social media about how lgbt should all face execution from the government (yes there are churches that still do think that in the US), and your store has a large lgbt client base, the store should have the right to fire you. There is this lovely grey area where decisions have to be made.

The Westboro Cult is a blasphemous organization with no to ties or acceptance in the Christian Church. Even if they agree with sodomy being prosecuted by the government, no Christian insinuates that God hates any man. That is blasphemy. Not heresy, blasphemy.

[Neutraligon]

Which only means that stores do not have the ability to deal with boycott. Whether we like it or not, stores are affected by the actions of their employees on social media. It is why they often go through someone's social media when they hire a person.

Uhm...good?
So they become less effective at chilling speech.

Your speech has never been protected from public reaction, only from the government.

If you go on a rant on social media about how lgbt should all face execution from the government (yes there are churches that still do think that in the US), and your store has a large lgbt client base, the store should have the right to fire you. There is this lovely grey area where decisions have to be made.

The Westboro Cult is a blasphemous organization with no to ties or acceptance in the Christian Church. Even if they agree with sodomy being prosecuted by the government, no Christian insinuates that God hates any man. That is blasphemy. Not heresy, blasphemy.

Funny enough I was not talking about the WBC. I was simply using it as an example of my saying it depends.

[Neutraligon]

Where do you draw the line there ? Is your employer allowed to fire you if you spend your day off standing in front of their office yelling obscenities at minorities ?

Are you on their property?

Nope, you are outside their store front on the sidewalk.

[CoraSpia]

Uhm...good?
So they become less effective at chilling speech.

Your speech has never been protected from public reaction, only from the government.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying. If businesses have no ability to fire someone, boycott or no boycott, then that won't be seen as a useful tactic that protesters can employ to shut people down. This is a good thing.

[CoraSpia]

Are you on their property?

Nope, you are outside their store front on the sidewalk.

Then that's a big old nope from me.

[Page]

That headline is like reading "The Pope's brother is Catholic." Tucker Carlson is the pope of bigotry.

[Valrifell]

Your speech has never been protected from public reaction, only from the government.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying. If businesses have no ability to fire someone, boycott or no boycott, then that won't be seen as a useful tactic that protesters can employ to shut people down. This is a good thing.

Businesses have the ability to freely associate with who they choose, this is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy.

[Neutraligon]

Your speech has never been protected from public reaction, only from the government.

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying. If businesses have no ability to fire someone, boycott or no boycott, then that won't be seen as a useful tactic that protesters can employ to shut people down. This is a good thing.

Even if a business cannot fire them, people will likely still boycott the business. People tend not to be rational actors. I mean people still boycott businesses where that business so so large that it does not matter if they are boycotted.

[Cannot think of a name]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying. If businesses have no ability to fire someone, boycott or no boycott, then that won't be seen as a useful tactic that protesters can employ to shut people down. This is a good thing.

Even if a business cannot fire them, people will likely still boycott the business. People tend not to be rational actors. I mean people still boycott businesses where that business so so large that it does not matter if they are boycotted.

Every time Disney does something some group, no matter the stripe, gets all bent out of shape and decides its time to boycott I get excited because a group of people are about to discover exactly how pervasive a company like Disney really is. Usually the magnitude of it is just too much for them to bear and they short circuit, move on to other things, but a few...a precious few see the problem.

[Neutraligon]

Even if a business cannot fire them, people will likely still boycott the business. People tend not to be rational actors. I mean people still boycott businesses where that business so so large that it does not matter if they are boycotted.

Every time Disney does something some group, no matter the stripe, gets all bent out of shape and decides its time to boycott I get excited because a group of people are about to discover exactly how pervasive a company like Disney really is. Usually the magnitude of it is just too much for them to bear and they short circuit, move on to other things, but a few...a precious few see the problem.

Nestle is kinda like that as well

[CoraSpia]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying. If businesses have no ability to fire someone, boycott or no boycott, then that won't be seen as a useful tactic that protesters can employ to shut people down. This is a good thing.

Businesses have the ability to freely associate with who they choose, this is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy.

I hate disabled people, they're the scum of the earth and should not be allowed in civilised society or to get important jobs. Especially those blind people with all the adjustments they demand, scuffing the walls with white canes and needing somewhere for their dogs to shit. Can I fire an employee for being blind?

(note: these are not my views. I picked that example because I am blind and don't know any others on the site who it could possibly offend.)

[CoraSpia]

I'm not sure what that has to do with what I'm saying. If businesses have no ability to fire someone, boycott or no boycott, then that won't be seen as a useful tactic that protesters can employ to shut people down. This is a good thing.

Even if a business cannot fire them, people will likely still boycott the business. People tend not to be rational actors. I mean people still boycott businesses where that business so so large that it does not matter if they are boycotted.

So they boycott them, I'm pretty sure when it has no effect and just loses innocent people revenue that its uselessness as a tactic will become clear.

[Neutraligon]

Even if a business cannot fire them, people will likely still boycott the business. People tend not to be rational actors. I mean people still boycott businesses where that business so so large that it does not matter if they are boycotted.

So they boycott them, I'm pretty sure when it has no effect and just loses innocent people revenue that its uselessness as a tactic will become clear.

If it is a small business, the business will be affected. If it is a large business, then they don't have to care about any boycott and capitalism failed.

[Valrifell]

Businesses have the ability to freely associate with who they choose, this is a cornerstone of a liberal democracy.

I hate disabled people, they're the scum of the earth and should not be allowed in civilised society or to get important jobs. Especially those blind people with all the adjustments they demand, scuffing the walls with white canes and needing somewhere for their dogs to shit. Can I fire an employee for being blind?

(note: these are not my views. I picked that example because I am blind and don't know any others on the site who it could possibly offend.)

There's a different line between knocking people for physical disabilities or physical characteristics and political views, we restrain these rights within reason. Giving people and businesses the freedom to distance themselves from individuals with they disagree with has been a thing for centuries. Only now do "Libertarians" rail against it because, shocker, they hate freedom.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

You're making it really hard for me to not start quoting African American crime statistics. Or the rape/violence statistics of certain groups within Europe, and Oceania, and Canada.

Oh you mean you're gonna pull crime stats that are a result of intense poverty and single parent households and claim without evidence that they're a result of biology?

You can pull all the stats you want. You're making a leap of faith to blame biology when there's a million other factors involved which are stronger in relation to these issues than race.

Also the stats are biased sense those stats don't take into account all the unreported crime and uncharged crime.

[CoraSpia]

I hate disabled people, they're the scum of the earth and should not be allowed in civilised society or to get important jobs. Especially those blind people with all the adjustments they demand, scuffing the walls with white canes and needing somewhere for their dogs to shit. Can I fire an employee for being blind?

(note: these are not my views. I picked that example because I am blind and don't know any others on the site who it could possibly offend.)

There's a different line between knocking people for physical disabilities or physical characteristics and political views, we restrain these rights within reason. Giving people and businesses the freedom to distance themselves from individuals with they disagree with has been a thing for centuries. Only now do "Libertarians" rail against it because, shocker, they hate freedom.

No, you just misunderstand the hierarchy of rights; everybody has their own. I put freedom of expression much higher than the freedom to hire and fire who you wish.

[TURTLESHROOM II]

Who is Rutger and why should I care about what he says, I can cite an alcoholic bum down the street to sound smart and well read also.

Rutger Bregman is a popular historian(as in, scholar of popular history) and author who was interviewed by Tucker Carlson. The interview never aired because Bregman made the aforementioned observation and Carlson took offence. But the footage got online anyway, as it tends to do.

[/quote]

First off, prove it.

Second, yes, he is a millionaire supported by billionaires. Here's the thing, though. Unlike the pro-Marxist class warfare and envy of the left against successful people (and their constant demand to plunder them), rightists do not believe that being rich equates to being evil. Therefore, the fact that Tucker Carlson has the approval or cash of a billionaire is irrelevant to both his character and mission.

Trump is himself a billionaire and I have been convinced by his ACTIONS that he cares about my interests. Despite having no character or class himself, I have seen no President so devoted to advancing (portions of) my agenda in such a fierce and loyal way. For that reason, I choose to believe that the President actually cares about my demographic and its interests, and for his country.

The same goers for Tucker Carlson. As shocking as it may seem to NSG-blr, being rich doesn't inherently mean you don't care about the poor. It doesn't mean that you have no emotions or sympathy for the oppressed. When you get somewhere, remember to look back and see those from which you came. The fact that he could be sincere (and likely is) should never be discounted.

Unless you're going to tell me, for the same reasons, that Bernie Sanders, a millionaire with three mansions, has no sincerity in his beliefs, then you can't toss out Carlson because of his wealth. Carlson is not a hypocrite: he does not preach values against his own lifestyle and wealth, nor does he advocate that they be plundered without his wealth being touched.

[Valrifell]

There's a different line between knocking people for physical disabilities or physical characteristics and political views, we restrain these rights within reason. Giving people and businesses the freedom to distance themselves from individuals with they disagree with has been a thing for centuries. Only now do "Libertarians" rail against it because, shocker, they hate freedom.

No, you just misunderstand the hierarchy of rights; everybody has their own. I put freedom of expression much higher than the freedom to hire and fire who you wish.

To clarify, you can still express those views without a job. Sure, it might be harder but you still can.

But this is more a flaw with the inherent nature of capitalism where having more capital means you have a wider audience, where dollar signs equate to how much speech you are allowed to have. It's not a flaw with the right of free association.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Anyway, I am not shocked that Tucker Carlson's writer posts stupid things and says stupid bad horrible things.

Tucker Carlson is just another Anti SJW echo chamber leader having one of his writers be an asshole is not surprising.

[The Reformed American Republic]

Trump is himself a billionaire and I have been convinced by his ACTIONS that he cares about my interests.

No, he only cares about his own interests. He throws you bones and you fall for it.

[Cannot think of a name]

Every time Disney does something some group, no matter the stripe, gets all bent out of shape and decides its time to boycott I get excited because a group of people are about to discover exactly how pervasive a company like Disney really is. Usually the magnitude of it is just too much for them to bear and they short circuit, move on to other things, but a few...a precious few see the problem.

Nestle is kinda like that as well

Yeah, as a Californian we found that out the hard way.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

Every time Disney does something some group, no matter the stripe, gets all bent out of shape and decides its time to boycott I get excited because a group of people are about to discover exactly how pervasive a company like Disney really is. Usually the magnitude of it is just too much for them to bear and they short circuit, move on to other things, but a few...a precious few see the problem.

Nestle is kinda like that as well

TBF Nestle is an evil corporation that also makes damn good ice cream and chocolates.

[Rojava Free State]

If you go on a rant on social media about how lgbt should all face execution from the government (yes there are churches that still do think that in the US), and your store has a large lgbt client base, the store should have the right to fire you. There is this lovely grey area where decisions have to be made.

The Westboro Cult is a blasphemous organization with no to ties or acceptance in the Christian Church. Even if they agree with sodomy being prosecuted by the government, no Christian insinuates that God hates any man. That is blasphemy. Not heresy, blasphemy.

If God burns them in hell then yes he hates them.