Bigoted online posts from Tucker Carlson's co-writer

[Hurdergaryp]

1. People can say and think what they want without consequences.

Untrue. Freedom of speech does not mean that your statements won't elicit responses.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

I disagree, we already protect other things, we should protect political belief and speech as well.

Your political opinions does not mean I have to continue to shop at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other people's business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere. You seem to want to force a store to keep an employee who is harmful to the business.

No i want to allow people to not be victimised for things that have nothing to do with their job. You can stop shopping there if you want, but the company should have no ability to target this staff member.

Oh

And make doxxing a criminal offence.

[Ifreann]

Rutger Bregman put it best when he said Carlson is a millionaire funded by billionaires - because he is, and you have to be really naive to think Carlson believes the populist rhetoric he's spouting on air.

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.

---

"without consequences"
If I change my opinion about you as a consequence of something you say, then that change of opinion is a consequence of what you said. You see how that works?

Yes and now show me where your opinion on someone else is relevant to their life.

I don't see anything in you post about relevance to other people's lives. I can quote your post for you again, if you'd like.

1. People can say and think what they want without consequences.

Say and think what they like without consequences.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

1. People can say and think what they want without consequences.

Untrue. Freedom of speech does not mean that your statements won't elicit responses.

Yes, consequences imply actions not words.

[CoraSpia]

I disagree, we already protect other things, we should protect political belief and speech as well.

Your political opinions does not mean I have to continue to shop at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other people's business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere. You seem to want to force a store to keep an employee who is harmful to the business.

Your sexual orientation/race/religion does not mean I have to continue shopping at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other peoples business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere.

[Hurdergaryp]

Untrue. Freedom of speech does not mean that your statements won't elicit responses.

Yes, consequences imply actions not words.

There are several ways to respond, included actions. Ask the forum moderators if you want to know more.

[Neutraligon]

Your political opinions does not mean I have to continue to shop at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other people's business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere. You seem to want to force a store to keep an employee who is harmful to the business.

Your sexual orientation/race/religion does not mean I have to continue shopping at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other peoples business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere.

Correct, you do not have to continue shopping there, and stores get to decide if keeping you is worth the loss of revenue. They decided, your business is not significant enough to matter, plus they get a better reputation (depending on where of course) for not putting out employees for and inborn trait, rather then a political opinion.

[Neutraligon]

Yes, consequences imply actions not words.

There are several ways to respond, included actions. Ask the forum moderators if you want to know more.

Oh very true, words have consequences. Break the sight rules due to words enough times and you (general you) will be removed. Disrupt a place of works business by shouting in their store, you will be removed and likely banned from returning.

Your political opinions does not mean I have to continue to shop at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other people's business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere. You seem to want to force a store to keep an employee who is harmful to the business.

No i want to allow people to not be victimised for things that have nothing to do with their job. You can stop shopping there if you want, but the company should have no ability to target this staff member.

Oh

And make doxxing a criminal offence.

Oh but see, this does effect his job. The guy is hired a a writer, and it is his writing that has caused an issue. His writing has negatively affected the workplace environment and reputation. A company should definitely have the ability to fire someone who is financially harmful to them. It seems your problem is with capitalism.

[CoraSpia]

Your sexual orientation/race/religion does not mean I have to continue shopping at your store if I disagree. I can then explain why I no longer shop at your store and the store owner gets to decide if their losing my (and other peoples business) is worth keeping the employee. I am expressing my speech and taking my business elsewhere.

Correct, you do not have to continue shopping there, and stores get to decide if keeping you is worth the loss of revenue. They decided, your business is not significant enough to matter, plus they get a better reputation (depending on where of course) for not putting out employees for and inborn trait, rather then a political opinion.

And if they're a small business, and I'm an industrial buyer? This can happen and has happened before. What then?

[Neutraligon]

Correct, you do not have to continue shopping there, and stores get to decide if keeping you is worth the loss of revenue. They decided, your business is not significant enough to matter, plus they get a better reputation (depending on where of course) for not putting out employees for and inborn trait, rather then a political opinion.

And if they're a small business, and I'm an industrial buyer? This can happen and has happened before. What then?

I do not understand what your response has to do with what I said. Oh you mean if you have enough money that you are in fact worth keeping as a client? Then the business gets to decide between you and their employee. It happens, all the time. If discovered by the general populace though, then you the industrial buyer ends up with a shit reputation.

[Asle Leopolka]

Wait, you're telling me a writer for a Fox News show holds bigoted and ignorant views? Who would've thunk it!?!

[CoraSpia]

And if they're a small business, and I'm an industrial buyer? This can happen and has happened before. What then?

I do not understand what your response has to do with what I said.

There has been a case (I can find it for you if you wish) in which an employee was fired due to a large customer having a problem with his sexual orientation. This would now be illegal: should it be illegal, or will you remain consistent to your stance that capitalism should dictate who is fired?

[Neutraligon]

I do not understand what your response has to do with what I said.

There has been a case (I can find it for you if you wish) in which an employee was fired due to a large customer having a problem with his sexual orientation. This would now be illegal: should it be illegal, or will you remain consistent to your stance that capitalism should dictate who is fired?

Sexual orientation is an inborn trait, just like skin color. This is not true for political opinions. I do not actually support what I was saying about capitalism, namely because pure capitalism has issues of monopolies and companies being big enough that protests don't do a thing.

[CoraSpia]

There has been a case (I can find it for you if you wish) in which an employee was fired due to a large customer having a problem with his sexual orientation. This would now be illegal: should it be illegal, or will you remain consistent to your stance that capitalism should dictate who is fired?

Sexual orientation is an inborn trait, just like skin color. This is not true for political opinions. I do not actually support what I was saying about capitalism, namely because pure capitalism has issues of monopolies and companies being big enough that protests don't do a thing.

Where do you draw the line? How about religion, I have changed religion yet it is a protected characteristic in most equality law.

[Soiled fruit roll ups]

There has been a case (I can find it for you if you wish) in which an employee was fired due to a large customer having a problem with his sexual orientation. This would now be illegal: should it be illegal, or will you remain consistent to your stance that capitalism should dictate who is fired?

Sexual orientation is an inborn trait, just like skin color. This is not true for political opinions. I do not actually support what I was saying about capitalism, namely because pure capitalism has issues of monopolies and companies being big enough that protests don't do a thing.

The science on that is irrelevant, as we don't demand that people live their lives by science. its about the harm to and interference of people's lives. And targeting someone for political beliefs is just as harmful to the individual as any of the other classifications.

[Kalaron-A]

I just hope we eventually stop chancing radicalization by taking people's livelihood's away from them for statements they made online away from the public. I'm sure everyone posting in this forum has never said anything that could get them shit on by society nowadays /s

[Neutraligon]

Sexual orientation is an inborn trait, just like skin color. This is not true for political opinions. I do not actually support what I was saying about capitalism, namely because pure capitalism has issues of monopolies and companies being big enough that protests don't do a thing.

Where do you draw the line? How about religion, I have changed religion yet it is a protected characteristic in most equality law.

For me it depends. If you use your religion to interrupt the workplace by harassing another employee about being lgbt...the store should have the right to fire you. 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.

[CoraSpia]

Where do you draw the line? How about religion, I have changed religion yet it is a protected characteristic in most equality law.

For me it depends. If you use your religion to interrupt the workplace by harassing another employee about being lgbt...the store should have the right to fire you. 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.

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.

[Neutraligon]

For me it depends. If you use your religion to interrupt the workplace by harassing another employee about being lgbt...the store should have the right to fire you. 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.

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.

Whether it should be or should not be an employers business, the fact remains that what happens on social media effects them and so they must deal with it in some way.

[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.

Whether it should not be an of the employers business, the fact remains that what happens on social media effects them and so they must deal with it in some way.

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

[TURTLESHROOM II]

1. People can say and think what they want without consequences.

2. Ghost writing allows for better quality content.

Free speech protects you from the government, not your fellow man. If you're dumb enough to say the N-word in a correspondance that isn't a locked car or the basement of your house, you will get caught and you will pay the consequences.

Using racial slurs- especially the N-word -broke Fox News' policies and the man's job was terminated accordingly.

The propagandists are now trying to attack Tucker Carlson and hold him responsible for the personal communications of a person that works for him. It is yet another ploy to get Fox News to sacrifice their cash cow. It's not going to work because most people can separate a hired employee versus the face on the television.

He shot his mouth off and was held accountable. End of story.

[The Alma Mater]

For me it depends. If you use your religion to interrupt the workplace by harassing another employee about being lgbt...the store should have the right to fire you. 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.

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 ?

[TURTLESHROOM II]

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

This would protect Nazis and Klansman, too. If I cannot fire a Marxist for being Marxist, I am not in a free country.

[Neutraligon]

Whether it should not be an of the employers business, the fact remains that what happens on social media effects them and so they must deal with it in some way.

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.

[CoraSpia]

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

This would protect Nazis and Klansman, too. If I cannot fire a Marxist for being Marxist, I am not in a free country.

Yes it would! That's the thing about laws, they extend to everyone.