IT WAS INEVITABLE: Speech control moves from the campus to the workplace

[daveman]

There is nothing at all sexual about this, other than what you bring to it.

Do you have a thing for dominant Asian females?

And Communists have no business condemning anyone's intelligence. We've discussed this before. Apparently, you were too stupid to get it, proving my point.

Sorry, guy, not everyone who thinks you are a moron is a communist... that would be most of the population.

YOU, personally, are a Communist. At least make an effort to keep up.

Ooops, sorry. You're too stupid to keep up.

Why are you Nazi christian cult members always so whiny?

Why did you rate my post "Winner", genius?

"Nazi". It's hilarious how you believe you should be taken seriously.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

There is nothing at all sexual about this, other than what you bring to it.

Do you have a thing for dominant Asian females?

And Communists have no business condemning anyone's intelligence. We've discussed this before. Apparently, you were too stupid to get it, proving my point.

Sorry, guy, not everyone who thinks you are a moron is a communist... that would be most of the population.

YOU, personally, are a Communist. At least make an effort to keep up.

Ooops, sorry. You're too stupid to keep up.

Why are you Nazi christian cult members always so whiny?

Why did you rate my post "Winner", genius?

"Nazi". It's hilarious how you believe you should be taken seriously.

Yes idiot, I was being facetious to mock you. You are sharp as a marble, yes you are.

 

[daveman]

There is nothing at all sexual about this, other than what you bring to it.

Do you have a thing for dominant Asian females?

And Communists have no business condemning anyone's intelligence. We've discussed this before. Apparently, you were too stupid to get it, proving my point.

Sorry, guy, not everyone who thinks you are a moron is a communist... that would be most of the population.

YOU, personally, are a Communist. At least make an effort to keep up.

Ooops, sorry. You're too stupid to keep up.

Why are you Nazi christian cult members always so whiny?

Why did you rate my post "Winner", genius?

"Nazi". It's hilarious how you believe you should be taken seriously.

Yes idiot, I was being facetious to mock you. You are sharp as a marble, yes you are.

Of course you're mocking me. It's all your capable of.

Meanwhile, Iosef has earned the label Communist because of the plans and policies he's espoused.

Dumbass.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Of course you're mocking me.

Absolutely! A moron like you tossing about the word " communist" (as if you even know what that word means) deserves mockery. The funniest part was watching you not understand what was happening. Really, with morons like you, nobody mocks you more efficiently than yourself.

 

[daveman]

Of course you're mocking me.

Absolutely! A moron like you tossing about the word " communist" (as if you even know what that word means) deserves mockery. The funniest part was watching you not understand what was happening. Really, with morons like you, nobody mocks you more efficiently than yourself.

I'm sure that fantasy plays well in your head.

 

[WEATHER53]

It’s not the function of employment to be a speech monitor PC policeman
We know the snowflakes want another igloo of comfort to surround them but go see your mommy about that and not your coworkers and bosses.
Put in the work and don’t be a crybaby snitch. Soothe your candy ass fragile comfort seeking self somewhere else

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Yes. Watch every last fucking word you say, when you say it, where you say it, how you say it, and to whom you say it. After all, this is America.

What would come out if you didn't watch what you say that you believe would get you in trouble?

How in the world would I know that? There's no way for me to know.

AND THAT'S THE POINT.
.

Seriously? You don't know what is considered appropriate or inappropriate conversations or comments for a workplace? We are still discussing implicit bias right? Although I will admit I was thinking in terms of what is lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And as an aside, it's not clear, at least not to me if your objection is to an employer seeking to discover if implicit bias exists among any of it's workers or if it's the use of AI to do the determination.

None of you have ever sat at a conference room table for a meeting and one of the attendees pulls out a hand-held recorder, turns it on and places on the table where everyone can see it? An AI device of this nature would simply scan and evaluate the content of the recorded conversation, looking for key words I imagine (I am not an AI developer so I'm just speculating here), the frequency with which they occur, which attendee uttered them, and a bunch of other things that I can not think of at the moment, and then analyze the compiled data and compare it to a set of measures. In other words, the same things we humans do, just faster and possibly more efficiently however there should be standards in place to ensure than there is no bias inadvertently progrmmed into the device's software. If there are not diverse members on the development team to catch and flag things that may not be apparant to the average software developer who have traditionally been white males, this could occur.

I'm very serious. This tiny story is one more example of how some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of American values.

I know there are many people like you who agree with that. I'm not trying to change your mind.
.

Well you're mistaken because my point was not that I agree with "some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of America values" instead it's that what you all fear is already being done AND that's it's not something any normal person should fear.

Freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and as upheld by the SCOTUS allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses even though this is a known intimidation tactic used to terrorize black people, just as one example. But as has been pointed out, repeatedly I believe, freedom of speech/expression as most people use the term is not applicable to a workplace situation because generally your employer, who you see as interferring with your free speech or freedom of expression rights, is not the government which is the entity prohibited from doing the interferring per the U.S. Constituion.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that you have to watch what you say so that you don't get accused of making racist, sexist, or any other inappropriate comments based on one of your co-worker's religion, ethnicity, national origin, perceived or actual disability, then that has been the law since 1964. Again, this is nothing new and in fact is the law.

 

[Dale Smith]

You? "Slapping" someone around? When did that ever happen?

Every day with you, crazy person. I even got you to quit for a couple of months and then start a whole thread whining about me. When everyone made fun of you, you asked the mods to shut down the thread.

It was fun.

What a tribute to your narcissism and over inflated sense of self. You had nothing to do with my sabbatical. It had to do with the deletion of posts where I countered the global warming U.N scam by producing proof of gfgnm eo-engineering thatbis being used to push U.N Agenda 21/Agenda 2030 and their marxist sustainability program pro,we\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\




































''

 

[Mac1958]

Yes. Watch every last fucking word you say, when you say it, where you say it, how you say it, and to whom you say it. After all, this is America.

What would come out if you didn't watch what you say that you believe would get you in trouble?

How in the world would I know that? There's no way for me to know.

AND THAT'S THE POINT.
.

Seriously? You don't know what is considered appropriate or inappropriate conversations or comments for a workplace? We are still discussing implicit bias right? Although I will admit I was thinking in terms of what is lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And as an aside, it's not clear, at least not to me if your objection is to an employer seeking to discover if implicit bias exists among any of it's workers or if it's the use of AI to do the determination.

None of you have ever sat at a conference room table for a meeting and one of the attendees pulls out a hand-held recorder, turns it on and places on the table where everyone can see it? An AI device of this nature would simply scan and evaluate the content of the recorded conversation, looking for key words I imagine (I am not an AI developer so I'm just speculating here), the frequency with which they occur, which attendee uttered them, and a bunch of other things that I can not think of at the moment, and then analyze the compiled data and compare it to a set of measures. In other words, the same things we humans do, just faster and possibly more efficiently however there should be standards in place to ensure than there is no bias inadvertently progrmmed into the device's software. If there are not diverse members on the development team to catch and flag things that may not be apparant to the average software developer who have traditionally been white males, this could occur.

I'm very serious. This tiny story is one more example of how some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of American values.

I know there are many people like you who agree with that. I'm not trying to change your mind.
.

Well you're mistaken because my point was not that I agree with "some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of America values" instead it's that what you all fear is already being done AND that's it's not something any normal person should fear.

Freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and as upheld by the SCOTUS allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses even though this is a known intimidation tactic used to terrorize black people, just as one example. But as has been pointed out, repeatedly I believe, freedom of speech/expression as most people use the term is not applicable to a workplace situation because generally your employer, who you see as interferring with your free speech or freedom of expression rights, is not the government which is the entity prohibited from doing the interferring per the U.S. Constituion.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that you have to watch what you say so that you don't get accused of making racist, sexist, or any other inappropriate comments based on one of your co-worker's religion, ethnicity, national origin, perceived or actual disability, then that has been the law since 1964. Again, this is nothing new and in fact is the law.

Yes, I get this argument quite a bit from those who don't believe in freedom of expression.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about values. Liberal values.

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?
.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?

Ann Coulter does not exist in my world. What is it about her that makes you think she should?

 

[Mac1958]

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?

Ann Coulter does not exist in my world. What is it about her that makes you think she should?

Clumsy dodge noted.

Good.
,

 

[pknopp]

What would come out if you didn't watch what you say that you believe would get you in trouble?

How in the world would I know that? There's no way for me to know.

AND THAT'S THE POINT.
.

Seriously? You don't know what is considered appropriate or inappropriate conversations or comments for a workplace? We are still discussing implicit bias right? Although I will admit I was thinking in terms of what is lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And as an aside, it's not clear, at least not to me if your objection is to an employer seeking to discover if implicit bias exists among any of it's workers or if it's the use of AI to do the determination.

None of you have ever sat at a conference room table for a meeting and one of the attendees pulls out a hand-held recorder, turns it on and places on the table where everyone can see it? An AI device of this nature would simply scan and evaluate the content of the recorded conversation, looking for key words I imagine (I am not an AI developer so I'm just speculating here), the frequency with which they occur, which attendee uttered them, and a bunch of other things that I can not think of at the moment, and then analyze the compiled data and compare it to a set of measures. In other words, the same things we humans do, just faster and possibly more efficiently however there should be standards in place to ensure than there is no bias inadvertently progrmmed into the device's software. If there are not diverse members on the development team to catch and flag things that may not be apparant to the average software developer who have traditionally been white males, this could occur.

I'm very serious. This tiny story is one more example of how some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of American values.

I know there are many people like you who agree with that. I'm not trying to change your mind.
.

Well you're mistaken because my point was not that I agree with "some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of America values" instead it's that what you all fear is already being done AND that's it's not something any normal person should fear.

Freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and as upheld by the SCOTUS allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses even though this is a known intimidation tactic used to terrorize black people, just as one example. But as has been pointed out, repeatedly I believe, freedom of speech/expression as most people use the term is not applicable to a workplace situation because generally your employer, who you see as interferring with your free speech or freedom of expression rights, is not the government which is the entity prohibited from doing the interferring per the U.S. Constituion.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that you have to watch what you say so that you don't get accused of making racist, sexist, or any other inappropriate comments based on one of your co-worker's religion, ethnicity, national origin, perceived or actual disability, then that has been the law since 1964. Again, this is nothing new and in fact is the law.

Yes, I get this argument quite a bit from those who don't believe in freedom of expression.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about values. Liberal values.

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?
.

What goes on in a business setting has nothing to do with that.

 

[Mac1958]

How in the world would I know that? There's no way for me to know.

AND THAT'S THE POINT.
.

Seriously? You don't know what is considered appropriate or inappropriate conversations or comments for a workplace? We are still discussing implicit bias right? Although I will admit I was thinking in terms of what is lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And as an aside, it's not clear, at least not to me if your objection is to an employer seeking to discover if implicit bias exists among any of it's workers or if it's the use of AI to do the determination.

None of you have ever sat at a conference room table for a meeting and one of the attendees pulls out a hand-held recorder, turns it on and places on the table where everyone can see it? An AI device of this nature would simply scan and evaluate the content of the recorded conversation, looking for key words I imagine (I am not an AI developer so I'm just speculating here), the frequency with which they occur, which attendee uttered them, and a bunch of other things that I can not think of at the moment, and then analyze the compiled data and compare it to a set of measures. In other words, the same things we humans do, just faster and possibly more efficiently however there should be standards in place to ensure than there is no bias inadvertently progrmmed into the device's software. If there are not diverse members on the development team to catch and flag things that may not be apparant to the average software developer who have traditionally been white males, this could occur.

I'm very serious. This tiny story is one more example of how some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of American values.

I know there are many people like you who agree with that. I'm not trying to change your mind.
.

Well you're mistaken because my point was not that I agree with "some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of America values" instead it's that what you all fear is already being done AND that's it's not something any normal person should fear.

Freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and as upheld by the SCOTUS allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses even though this is a known intimidation tactic used to terrorize black people, just as one example. But as has been pointed out, repeatedly I believe, freedom of speech/expression as most people use the term is not applicable to a workplace situation because generally your employer, who you see as interferring with your free speech or freedom of expression rights, is not the government which is the entity prohibited from doing the interferring per the U.S. Constituion.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that you have to watch what you say so that you don't get accused of making racist, sexist, or any other inappropriate comments based on one of your co-worker's religion, ethnicity, national origin, perceived or actual disability, then that has been the law since 1964. Again, this is nothing new and in fact is the law.

Yes, I get this argument quite a bit from those who don't believe in freedom of expression.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about values. Liberal values.

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?
.

What goes on in a business setting has nothing to do with that.

As I've already said, multiple times, this tiny story is about much more than a business setting.

I'm having a difficult time getting folks to just be honest.

When it comes to freedom of expression, I think I'll side with these folks:

 

[Mac1958]

 

[pknopp]

Seriously? You don't know what is considered appropriate or inappropriate conversations or comments for a workplace? We are still discussing implicit bias right? Although I will admit I was thinking in terms of what is lawful under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

And as an aside, it's not clear, at least not to me if your objection is to an employer seeking to discover if implicit bias exists among any of it's workers or if it's the use of AI to do the determination.

None of you have ever sat at a conference room table for a meeting and one of the attendees pulls out a hand-held recorder, turns it on and places on the table where everyone can see it? An AI device of this nature would simply scan and evaluate the content of the recorded conversation, looking for key words I imagine (I am not an AI developer so I'm just speculating here), the frequency with which they occur, which attendee uttered them, and a bunch of other things that I can not think of at the moment, and then analyze the compiled data and compare it to a set of measures. In other words, the same things we humans do, just faster and possibly more efficiently however there should be standards in place to ensure than there is no bias inadvertently progrmmed into the device's software. If there are not diverse members on the development team to catch and flag things that may not be apparant to the average software developer who have traditionally been white males, this could occur.

I'm very serious. This tiny story is one more example of how some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of American values.

I know there are many people like you who agree with that. I'm not trying to change your mind.
.

Well you're mistaken because my point was not that I agree with "some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of America values" instead it's that what you all fear is already being done AND that's it's not something any normal person should fear.

Freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and as upheld by the SCOTUS allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses even though this is a known intimidation tactic used to terrorize black people, just as one example. But as has been pointed out, repeatedly I believe, freedom of speech/expression as most people use the term is not applicable to a workplace situation because generally your employer, who you see as interferring with your free speech or freedom of expression rights, is not the government which is the entity prohibited from doing the interferring per the U.S. Constituion.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that you have to watch what you say so that you don't get accused of making racist, sexist, or any other inappropriate comments based on one of your co-worker's religion, ethnicity, national origin, perceived or actual disability, then that has been the law since 1964. Again, this is nothing new and in fact is the law.

Yes, I get this argument quite a bit from those who don't believe in freedom of expression.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about values. Liberal values.

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?
.

What goes on in a business setting has nothing to do with that.

As I've already said, multiple times, this tiny story is about much more than a business setting.

I'm having a difficult time getting folks to just be honest.

When it comes to freedom of expression, I think I'll side with these folks:

None of those people believe you can say whatever you want in a work setting without there being any repercussions.

Maybe you have a point to make but this example is not the article to make it with.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm very serious. This tiny story is one more example of how some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of American values.

I know there are many people like you who agree with that. I'm not trying to change your mind.
.

Well you're mistaken because my point was not that I agree with "some people want to exert more and more control over freedom of expression, the most liberal of America values" instead it's that what you all fear is already being done AND that's it's not something any normal person should fear.

Freedom of expression under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Constitution and as upheld by the SCOTUS allows the Ku Klux Klan to burn crosses even though this is a known intimidation tactic used to terrorize black people, just as one example. But as has been pointed out, repeatedly I believe, freedom of speech/expression as most people use the term is not applicable to a workplace situation because generally your employer, who you see as interferring with your free speech or freedom of expression rights, is not the government which is the entity prohibited from doing the interferring per the U.S. Constituion.

On the other hand, if your complaint is that you have to watch what you say so that you don't get accused of making racist, sexist, or any other inappropriate comments based on one of your co-worker's religion, ethnicity, national origin, perceived or actual disability, then that has been the law since 1964. Again, this is nothing new and in fact is the law.

Yes, I get this argument quite a bit from those who don't believe in freedom of expression.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about values. Liberal values.

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?
.

What goes on in a business setting has nothing to do with that.

As I've already said, multiple times, this tiny story is about much more than a business setting.

I'm having a difficult time getting folks to just be honest.

When it comes to freedom of expression, I think I'll side with these folks:

None of those people believe you can say whatever you want in a work setting without there being any repercussions.

Maybe you have a point to make but this example is not the article to make it with.

Naw. Nothing will ever be good enough for you. I know the game. I'll just agree with their sentiments, thanks.
.

 

[JoeB131]

YOU, personally, are a Communist. At least make an effort to keep up.

Ooops, sorry. You're too stupid to keep up.

No, buddy... you are too dumb to even define communism. But you keep sucking at the teet of the Military Industrial Complex.

 

[Mac1958]

In this clip, President Obama patiently explains to college students why they should allow others to express their opinions without fear of retribution.

I only wish the illiberal, authoritarian Regressive Left would take this message to heart in every other context. It's at the very heart of REAL liberalism.

 

[JoeB131]

What a tribute to your narcissism and over inflated sense of self. You had nothing to do with my sabbatical.

No, you just spent a whole paragraph whining about me.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, I get this argument quite a bit from those who don't believe in freedom of expression.

I'm not talking about law, I'm talking about values. Liberal values.

Tell me, exactly what did you think when Ann Coulter's campus talks were shut down?

because the kids who spend $42,000 a year to get a piece of paper didn't want to listen to her on their diime. That's why.

We've been over this, Stormy.

Freedom of speech allows you to say what you want, it doesn't give you a forum.

Just like I can't go into my old parish church and tell the congregation that Jesus is a fairy tale, Ann Coulter can't go into Berkeley and tell them whatever drivel she posts to get attention.

Funny thing about Coulter is she used to be a serious columnist. Then she figured out that the could get more attention by saying increasingly outrageous things. It was kind of a Coke Whore thing. The first few times, you might be fun at a party, but after a while.