The Refuge of the Toads

[rayshul]

And Richard Watership Down Adams is gone.

Who had him in the dead pool?

He was on the official list. -.-

Also I'm #TeamOckham all the way at the moment...

[feathers]

There are no jobs where the link between what one says away from work and doing said job can be argued to be zero.

The CIA jumps to mind. Hitman for the Cosa Nostra too.

[Billie from Ockham]

There are no jobs where the link between what one says away from work and doing said job can be argued to be zero.

The CIA jumps to mind. Hitman for the Cosa Nostra too.

Open yourself to the possibility that some links are not simple, linear functions.

[feathers]

Carrie Fisher didn't make it.

http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher- ... _peoplemag

I've had enough of this year.

Don't expect '17 to be much better, we're not through with aging boomers. I noticed you still have Kohl (86) in store. And co-cold-warrior Lubbers is 77.

[Dave]

"For Women of a certain age, Leia was the first woman we saw fighting rather than waiting to be rescued. It was a pivotal moment."

So says an FB friend.

No. Fuck You. If she was the first one you saw, its was merely that you werent paying attention and the only thing that is pivotal is your ability to warp history to feed your persecution complex.

Never mind the fact that she spends the whole first half of the first movie . . . wait for it . . . waiting to be rescued. And the second half just looking pretty while the men do all the fighting. So what the fuck are you talking about again?

[Dave]

"For Women of a certain age, Leia was the first woman we saw fighting rather than waiting to be rescued. It was a pivotal moment."

So says an FB friend.

No. Fuck You. If she was the first one you saw, its was merely that you werent paying attention and the only thing that is pivotal is your ability to warp history to feed your persecution complex.

Never mind the fact that she spends the whole first half of the first movie . . . wait for it . . . waiting to be rescued. And the second half just looking pretty while the men do all the fighting. So what the fuck are you talking about again?

[Dave]

Apparently that pissed me off so much, I had to say it twice.

[VickyCaramel]

If by "outing people" you mean bringing it to the attention of a wide range of people, then I'm fine with that. But be honest while doing it. Don't do what Vicky did yesterday and make the inference that he probably does it while teaching and include that in your warning when you have no fucking evidence that he's ever done that.

The bio page of his website says he teaches radical theory and politics. Seems he is not just teaching this ideology, there is plenty of evidence he believes it. I think we can be fairly confident he is not objective. And now he has made a statement we know he is a liar too.

And do not "out" the person in such a way as to imply that some people (e.g., employers) are responsible for dealing with the inappropriate behavior when they are not.

It is up to the employer to decide IF it is inappropriate behaviour, if it is detrimental to their workplace effectiveness and if it brings the company into disrepute or has a negative influence on the company's credibility.

If you sent somebody's employer information that they wore a shirt with scantily clad women on it, told a dongle joke, or sent a tweet about aids in Africa, if they had any sense they would say "so fucking what?".
If however you tell somebody's employer that they are members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and had been writing articles defending peodophila for Slate, you may well find they will fire your arse regardless of if it has an influence on your job or not.

The reality of the world we live in is that your potential employer may well judge your on your social media before employing you, and your contract or company policies are likely to say that they will expect you to behave as if you are representing the company at all times.

As somebody else has pointed out, if a student had made racist comments on social media they would be sanctioned. So why not the staff?
To echo Sargon, it is important we hold them to their own standards.

[Jack Wooster]

Just got out of Rogue One, looked at my phone and saw Fisher had died. Those who have seen the film will know why that is a particlar bummer.

[Billie from Ockham]

As I said before, Vicky, if you either support or accept without resistance the "reality" of employers sticking their nose into the non-work activities of their employees, then you are part of the problem. (I'm ignoring your speculations about what the guy does when teaching. I'll also wait patiently for you to point to anything on his work-related pages that make his Tweets part of his job.)

As to the difference between how a university treats staff vs how they treat students, I would start with the fact that one is an employee and one is a customer and then ask why anyone would think that the same sort of "rules" would apply.

[VickyCaramel]

CyzNJI3XUAA9AEY.jpg

(40.58 KiB) Downloaded 123 times

RIP #SlaveLeia

[VickyCaramel]

As I said before, Vicky, if you either support or accept without resistance the "reality" of employers sticking their nose into the non-work activities of their employees, then you are part of the problem.

It's a problem for you. I was an employer, for me the problem was quite different.

However, I managed a business and have been shitposting for over 20 years. Somehow I manage to find a way to make a hobby out of being deplorable on the internet and not have in reflect on my company's PR. Maybe you should have to pass an IQ test before being allowed on social media?

[Billie from Ockham]

As I said before, Vicky, if you either support or accept without resistance the "reality" of employers sticking their nose into the non-work activities of their employees, then you are part of the problem.

It's a problem for you. I was an employer, for me the problem was quite different.

Fuck Thank you for assuming that I only care about issues that affect me directly.

[VickyCaramel]

As to the difference between how a university treats staff vs how they treat students, I would start with the fact that one is an employee and one is a customer and then ask why anyone would think that the same sort of "rules" would apply.

Do as I say, not as I do. Double standards. Hypocrisy. Different rules for different people, based on job, gender, skin colour or political leanings. Move along, nothing to see here... nothing to do with why people are complaining in the first place.

[Dick Strawkins]

"Come in we're cunts"?
Sounds like a slymepit header.

[sp0tlight]

Being in Blues Brothers and Star Wars puts you on my faves list forever (until I kick the bucket, that is), Carrie.

Let me open a cold one, cheers!

[youtube][/youtube]

[Billie from Ockham]

If you believe that job belongs on a list with gender and skin-color, then you're an idiot.

[sp0tlight]

"Come in we're cunts"?
Sounds like a slymepit header.

FT, please, put it in, put it in, like, hard!

[free thoughtpolice]

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... emale-dna/

There is no such a thing as male and female DNA. True or false.

[ROBOKiTTY]

Such contempt for the freedom of speech when it's someone from the other side. I've said some pretty outrageous things over the years on this forum. I wonder how many people would be willing to report me to my employer.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

If by "outing people" you mean bringing it to the attention of a wide range of people, then I'm fine with that. But be honest while doing it. Don't do what Vicky did yesterday and make the inference that he probably does it while teaching and include that in your warning when you have no fucking evidence that he's ever done that.

The bio page of his website says he teaches radical theory and politics. Seems he is not just teaching this ideology, there is plenty of evidence he believes it. I think we can be fairly confident he is not objective. And now he has made a statement we know he is a liar too.

And do not "out" the person in such a way as to imply that some people (e.g., employers) are responsible for dealing with the inappropriate behavior when they are not.

It is up to the employer to decide IF it is inappropriate behaviour, if it is detrimental to their workplace effectiveness and if it brings the company into disrepute or has a negative influence on the company's credibility.

If you sent somebody's employer information that they wore a shirt with scantily clad women on it, told a dongle joke, or sent a tweet about aids in Africa, if they had any sense they would say "so fucking what?".
If however you tell somebody's employer that they are members of the North American Man/Boy Love Association and had been writing articles defending peodophila for Slate, you may well find they will fire your arse regardless of if it has an influence on your job or not.

The reality of the world we live in is that your potential employer may well judge your on your social media before employing you, and your contract or company policies are likely to say that they will expect you to behave as if you are representing the company at all times.

As somebody else has pointed out, if a student had made racist comments on social media they would be sanctioned. So why not the staff?
To echo Sargon, it is important we hold them to their own standards.

If by holding them to their own standards, we have to lower ours, then it makes sense not to do it.

Why should a student or a professor be sanctioned for what they do if it is on their own time and not illegal? And where does this end? The internet is exposing a great deal of things that used to be private. The thought of controlling everything one says to avoid controversy and loss of employment is quite chilling.

Are you okay with what the baboons did to Skeptickle when she made a joke on the pit and they went after her job? What exactly is the difference with this?

Would you be cool if you got doxxed and your online kinks were tied to your professional life? Or is the only way to advance anything controversial or unpopular through nyms and proxies?

You're essentially arguing that Peterson should lose his job. That we counter arguments we don't agree with by pressuring the oppositions employer. That can't end well.

[VickyCaramel]

If you believe that job belongs on a list with gender and skin-color, then you're an idiot.

Exactly. You can be held to higher standard because of your job, the soft bigotry of low expectations is only applied to gender and skin colour.

[Billie from Ockham]

As to the difference between how a university treats staff vs how they treat students, I would start with the fact that one is an employee and one is a customer and then ask why anyone would think that the same sort of "rules" would apply.

Do as I say, not as I do. Double standards. Hypocrisy. Different rules for different people, based on job, gender, skin colour or political leanings. Move along, nothing to see here... nothing to do with why people are complaining in the first place.

-

If you believe that job belongs on a list with gender and skin-color, then you're an idiot.

Exactly. You can be held to higher standard because of your job, the soft bigotry of low expectations is only applied to gender and skin colour.

[Suet Cardigan]

Such contempt for the freedom of speech when it's someone from the other side. I've said some pretty outrageous things over the years on this forum. I wonder how many people would be willing to report me to my employer.

Do you actually have a job? I wouldn't think there were many job opportunities for a robot cat.

http://www.ego-vero.net/main/wp-content ... ot-cat.jpg

Except maybe for catching computer mice.

*Gets coat*

[VickyCaramel]

Are you okay with what the baboons did to Skeptickle when she made a joke on the pit and they went after her job? What exactly is the difference with this?

Did she link her online profile to company social media accounts? If so them her employer has a right to take an interest on what she is saying online.

You're essentially arguing that Peterson should lose his job.

No I am not essentially arguing that at all! I would argue, and so would Peterson, that these things should be discussed in university, and university is the right place to have this discussion.
And discussing the merits of what somebody like Peterson says does not mean he loses his job. None of this means anyone needs to lose their job. In any of the examples that have been given, the employer has the option to say, "We endorse this", "We support freedom of speech", "This is not our business" or "Take this shit outside and leave us out of it".

[Billie from Ockham]

Do you actually have a job? I wouldn't think there were many job opportunities for a robot cat.

This is actually relevant in that many people who use contacting employers as a way to intimidate and stifle speech are either unemployed or self-employed. Of course, this does afford them the opportunity to use a type of "punching-up" defense.

[Billie from Ockham]

In any of the examples that have been given, the employer has the option to say, "We endorse this", "We support freedom of speech", "This is not our business" or "Take this shit outside and leave us out of it".

12:00 ... 12:00 ... 12:00 ... 12:00

[ROBOKiTTY]

Do you actually have a job? I wouldn't think there were many job opportunities for a robot cat.

[himg]http://www.ego-vero.net/main/wp-content ... ot-cat.jpg[/himg]

Except maybe for catching computer mice.

*Gets coat*

That's classified. :snooty:

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

snip comment on Skeptickle

Did she link her online profile to company social media accounts? If so them her employer has a right to take an interest on what she is saying online.

You're essentially arguing that Peterson should lose his job.

[/quote]
No I am not essentially arguing that at all! I would argue, and so would Peterson, that these things should be discussed in university, and university is the right place to have this discussion.
And discussing the merits of what somebody like Peterson says does not mean he loses his job. None of this means anyone needs to lose their job. In any of the examples that have been given, the employer has the option to say, "We endorse this", "We support freedom of speech", "This is not our business" or "Take this shit outside and leave us out of it".[/quote]
None of this means anybody has to lose their job, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that it is not a very likely outcome. Deciding to "bring scrutiny" to people's opinions based solely on how well they disguise their employment is a bad idea. Especially in an age where nearly every employer is reluctant to be associated with controversy exactly because of callout culture. Somebody will always decide a controversial opinion is so egregious that it is the right thing to do is call attention to their employer.

And why would you do that anyway? If they don't state it is their employer's view, why would you call attention to it to their employer? Most people are bright enough to know that sometimes people hold different views than that of their employer. Why do it at all unless you are trying to stir up trouble, especially on social media?

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Quote fuckup, sorry.

[Dav Boo]

In reality, the quality of the NHS has fluctuated a lot. It was terrible during the 70s, improved a bit through the 80s,

Improved in the 80's? It was run almost into the ground by Thatcher, constantly underfunded in a deliberate attempt to persuade people to go private. And private of course were her buddies.

[MarcusAu]

Stay Gold, Dav Boo

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Such contempt for the freedom of speech when it's someone from the other side. I've said some pretty outrageous things over the years on this forum. I wonder how many people would be willing to report me to my employer.

I am but a humble shitposter, so I might easily be convinced that this callout thing is right and good if someone could explain why exactly you would contact an employer for someone's off-work opinions except to cause trouble with that person's job.

[Dav Boo]

Stay Gold, Dav Boo

You're not a Thatcher lover are you?

[MarcusAu]

Stay Gold, Dav Boo

You're not a Thatcher lover are you?

No, she's a bit past her prime.

nb with your next post your name should go from 'gold' to 'blue'

[youtube][/youtube]

[Brive1987]

Carrie Fisher didn't make it.

http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher- ... _peoplemag

I've had enough of this year.

Charmingly, PZ makes it all about himself. This is his entire post on the matter:

Carrie Fisher and I were about the same age, so I have to agree, she was too young and lively to die.
Dang. I should have headed off to Hollywood when I was 19 to become a cinema icon. Missed my chance.

Cunt.

[Kirbmarc]

Such contempt for the freedom of speech when it's someone from the other side. I've said some pretty outrageous things over the years on this forum. I wonder how many people would be willing to report me to my employer.

I have to say that plenty of people in here defend freedom of speech for everyone. It's just a few who think it's OK to behave like SJWs against their political rivals.

I don't think that anyone should have reported Mr. Commie-WhiteGenocide to his employers, just save his tweets as an example of SJW assholery. I've called out Sargon on the consequences of his "I just want transparency" approach, assuming good faith on his side, too.

But yes, there are some actors in the "anti-SJW community" (whatever that is) that aren't in to defend their rights, analyze data and criticize stupidity but to outright attack and more or less ban from public discourse an entire side of politics just like the SJWs have done.

[VickyCaramel]

None of this means anybody has to lose their job, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that it is not a very likely outcome.

Actually no. I have dealt with this stuff. I employed working class lads, many of them ex-forces and with a morbid sense of humour. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff they posted -- people getting their heads blown off, pornography, racist memes and political stuff which belongs on 4chan. And it wasn't just employees it was subcontractors.
Nobody got fired, nobody got reprimanded or punished. It was however a learning curve for them to learn not to interact with the corporate social media or interact with the customers using their personal accounts.

And my main complaint was that I have better things to do than police it, so I had to get them to police themselves. The subcontractors are much harder work.

These kinds of men identify by what they do. Their job is part of their identity, so this separation isn't easy.

Deciding to "bring scrutiny" to people's opinions based solely on how well they disguise their employment is a bad idea.
[...]
And why would you do that anyway? If they don't state it is their employer's view, why would you call attention to it to their employer? Most people are bright enough to know that sometimes people hold different views than that of their employer. Why do it at all unless you are trying to stir up trouble, especially on social media?

People are always trying to stir up trouble even without social media, employers are used to it and many will take a commonsense approach. But there is no need for an employer to invite trouble they know they are going to have to keep dealing with. And frankly, if you fired everybody who said or posted something stupid you wouldn't have any staff left.

It depends if it is relevant. In this case you have a radical communist who teaches radical communist history and ideology making racist statements based on his radical communist views. He is just another idiot on twitter, but in university he teaches and that is what concerns me.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

Carrie Fisher didn't make it.

http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher- ... _peoplemag

I've had enough of this year.

Charmingly, PZ makes it all about himself. This is his entire post on the matter:

Carrie Fisher and I were about the same age, so I have to agree, she was too young and lively to die.
Dang. I should have headed off to Hollywood when I was 19 to become a cinema icon. Missed my chance.

Cunt.

Yet I can easily imagine PZ as a cinema icon. The dashing good looks, the raw charisma and effortless charm he exudes would have been a huge draw in the box office. Yet cinema's loss is the science world's gain with his hugely popular, ground-breaking book on evolution. Not to mention the soaring popularity and commercial success of his ever-reasonable blog.

[Guest_cbe0318c]

Dav Boo knows. Here we are 30 odd years later, we have Tories in charge and it is being slowly run into the ground again. Shocker.

Saint Maggie's waiting lists were going to leave me to me go deaf at 8 years old. It is only because my Mum and Dad could scrape together the price of a private consultant (and a stern letter to the NHS from him) that I have any hearing at all.


CaughtUpLockedOut

[Service Dog]

It's not Objectifcation when PZ do it.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... on-of-men/

[Ape+lust]

Carrie Fisher didn't make it.

http://people.com/movies/carrie-fisher- ... _peoplemag

I've had enough of this year.

Charmingly, PZ makes it all about himself. This is his entire post on the matter:

Carrie Fisher and I were about the same age, so I have to agree, she was too young and lively to die.
Dang. I should have headed off to Hollywood when I was 19 to become a cinema icon. Missed my chance.

Cunt.

S'alright, somebody popped him with what he deserved :lol:

http://imgur.com/srPW5Sp.jpg

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

None of this means anybody has to lose their job, but it would be disingenuous to suggest that it is not a very likely outcome.

Actually no. I have dealt with this stuff. I employed working class lads, many of them ex-forces and with a morbid sense of humour. You wouldn't believe some of the stuff they posted -- people getting their heads blown off, pornography, racist memes and political stuff which belongs on 4chan. And it wasn't just employees it was subcontractors.
Nobody got fired, nobody got reprimanded or punished. It was however a learning curve for them to learn not to interact with the corporate social media or interact with the customers using their personal accounts.

And my main complaint was that I have better things to do than police it, so I had to get them to police themselves. The subcontractors are much harder work.

These kinds of men identify by what they do. Their job is part of their identity, so this separation isn't easy.

Deciding to "bring scrutiny" to people's opinions based solely on how well they disguise their employment is a bad idea.
[...]
And why would you do that anyway? If they don't state it is their employer's view, why would you call attention to it to their employer? Most people are bright enough to know that sometimes people hold different views than that of their employer. Why do it at all unless you are trying to stir up trouble, especially on social media?

People are always trying to stir up trouble even without social media, employers are used to it and many will take a commonsense approach. But there is no need for an employer to invite trouble they know they are going to have to keep dealing with. And frankly, if you fired everybody who said or posted something stupid you wouldn't have any staff left.

It depends if it is relevant. In this case you have a radical communist who teaches radical communist history and ideology making racist statements based on his radical communist views. He is just another idiot on twitter, but in university he teaches and that is what concerns me.

So based on your speculation that he is teaching this as well and that the university isn't aware of it, it is a good idea to call this out on social media?

But in essence, you seem to be agreeing with me. The whole point of making his employers aware is to cause trouble with his job and to censor future comments. He will either keep his opinions to himself or be fired or it will force every employer to make certain their employees don't say anything controversial. That employees views to not reflect the official position of their employer is pretty well understood outside of religious institutions.

Which is of course, intimidation with the purpose of censorship. Got it.

[Billie from Ockham]

Maybe I went too far with my snide post about you being correct only twice a day.

{snip} It was however a learning curve for them to learn not to interact ... customers using their personal accounts. {snip}

The above is valid because it involves customers and, therefore, the job. I have had to remind my research assistants to not flirt with subjects or use their contact information to ask them for dates. That, too, was a valid intrusion by an employer in the private lives of employees but only because they were directly involving the lab.*

There's no argument about this, just as there would be no argument if WhiteGenocide guy were either using an official account or saying shit like that in class.

The argument is about cases where the despicable actions have nothing to do with your job.

*nb. FYI: only female RAs have ever flirted with subjects or used the subject database to get a phone number. My male RAs have never done this. Interesting, eh?

[Billie from Ockham]

S'alright, somebody popped him with what he deserved :lol:

http://imgur.com/srPW5Sp.jpg

Oh, my, but that was very well done. :clap: :clap: :clap:

[paddybrown]

My thoughts on this twat at Drexel and his white genocide tweets.

Partly it's about the limitations of Twitter - there's no room for context or nuance in 140 characters. Sargon should know this after Kristi Winters recently took one of his tweets out if context and pretended not to understand it was a sarcastic response to something somebody else said. Prof Twat has made his tweets private so there's no way of knowing if there's any context that makes his intentions clearer. If it was part of a conversation about white nationalists seeing white genocide everywhere, then his defence that he was mocking that sort of thing is reasonable. If he just said it out of the blue, it really isn't and he was asking for all the blowback he's received. But I don't know which is true.

Mostly it's about the left counter-productively doubling down on the anti-white rhetoric since Trump got elected. The entire left seems to be making the same mistake that the feminist movement has been making for some time of alienating swathes of potential supporters through sheer spite. Prof Twat is right that white genocide doesn't exist and isn't realistically going to happen in the US, but so long as there's a perception that there's a faction of the left that advocates it, people are, quite reasonably, going to vote right to keep them out.

I think the university's response - acknowledging that the tweet is, on the face of it, disturbing and asking him to a meeting to explain himself - is the right one. Their brand will be damaged and they could lose enrollments if they allow themselves to be associated with sentiments like this, so they need to be clear they don't endorse it. All he needs to do is say it was intended satirically but he can understand how people could get the wrong idea seeing it out of context and he'll try to be more careful in expressing himself in future. But reading some of his public comments, I'm not sure he has that much sense. If he's as much of a twat as I suspect he might be, he might just double down and claim that the only people who could find his tweet objectionable are white supremacists, and then god knows what'll happen.

[screwtape]

Also I'm #TeamOckham all the way at the moment...

And the odds of a Rayshul/VC lez fest just got long enough that only poor Steers would his money down.

[VickyCaramel]

Maybe I went too far with my snide post about you being correct only twice a day.

{snip} It was however a learning curve for them to learn not to interact ... customers using their personal accounts. {snip}

The above is valid because it involves customers and, therefore, the job.

It is more complicated than that. My employees were bringing their friends in to be customers, and making friends with customers out of work. Another thing I had to think about was what customers I wanted and what markets I wanted to tap into. Dealing with riff-raff is not profitable and puts off my wealthy and celebrity customers.

More importantly, every member of the general public is a potential customer.

Imagine you work in leisure or sports industries or something else with an enthusiast community, and you have a customer show up only to find he is greeted by the same asshole who was shit-posting on his favorite forum or facebook group. Or maybe he was at a club meet, competition or conference, got drunk and pissed in the punch.

If it matters, it matters. Thats the only rule.

[Billie from Ockham]

I think the university's response - acknowledging that the tweet is, on the face of it, disturbing and asking him to a meeting to explain himself - is the right one. Their brand will be damaged and they could lose enrollments if they allow themselves to be associated with sentiments like this, so they need to be clear they don't endorse it. All he needs to do is say it was intended satirically but he can understand how people could get the wrong idea seeing it out of context and he'll try to be more careful in expressing himself in future. But reading some of his public comments, I'm not sure he has that much sense. If he's as much of a twat as I suspect he might be, he might just double down and claim that the only people who could find his tweet objectionable are white supremacists, and then god knows what'll happen.

I was totally with you for the first few sentences, but then we diverge. Assuming that he has a typical contract (and I've worked for both public and private universities), all he needs to do is tell them that what he's doing has nothing to do with his job. The school can then ask for assurances to this effect and he should give them. Then they should shake hands and end the meeting. And then someone should take him aside and unofficially tell him that he's being an idiot, as well as warn him about packet-monitoring software on university machines (regardless of whether they really have such). This, by the way, is pretty much what happened with PZ, by my understanding, and it's the correct way for a typical university to handle embarrassing faculty.

Now, there are private schools in the US with more than the usual requirements in their contracts. Hope College comes to mind. (I still can't believe that I applied for that job.) But I have no reason to believe that Drexel has anything more than the usual wording.

[Billie from Ockham]

It is more complicated than that. My employees were bringing their friends in to be customers, and making friends with customers out of work. Another thing I had to think about was what customers I wanted and what markets I wanted to tap into. Dealing with riff-raff is not profitable and puts off my wealthy and celebrity customers.

Again, if your employees or subordinates were mixing their professional and private lives, then have at it. That's part of your job. But where is the evidence that #WhiteGenocide guy did this?

More importantly, every member of the general public is a potential customer.

Irrelevant. Or, even worse: an excuse to remove all privacy from everyone, because of something that might happen.

Imagine you work in leisure or sports industries or something else with an enthusiast community, and you have a customer show up only to find he is greeted by the same asshole who was shit-posting on his favorite forum or facebook group. Or maybe he was at a club meet, competition or conference, got drunk and pissed in the punch.

If it matters, it matters. Thats the only rule.

So feel free to include something about this in your employment contract. Do you know what it says in a Drexel contract?

[BoxNDox]

Tyler Perry directed?

No. But you made me look.

Actually, I was suggesting that the movie might be further "improved" by having Tyler Perry direct. You know, the guy whose work Spike Lee once called "coonery buffoonery".

[youtube][/youtube]

[sp0tlight]

https://i.redditmedia.com/WB_LMhCdNubG7 ... 80938d73a2

[Dav Boo]

:D

Stay Gold, Dav Boo

You're not a Thatcher lover are you?

No, she's a bit past her prime.

nb with your next post your name should go from 'gold' to 'blue'

Woohoo, complimentary dressing gown and slippers for me!

[ROBOKiTTY]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/twitt ... -1.3912956

People seem to be realizing they could be causing a lot more damage with fake news. Bring on the armageddon?

[VickyCaramel]

So feel free to include something about this in your employment contract. Do you know what it says in a Drexel contract?

It doesn't need to be contract, it doesn't even need to be written policy, if you bring into question the employer's credibility or reputation, then they have a duty to act because there are other people who depend on the employer for their livelihood.

This is the way it is, so feel free to show me a law of a passage in the human rights act where it says an employer can't take action if you make a fool of yourself on the internet.

[free thoughtpolice]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/twitt ... -1.3912956

People seem to be realizing they could be causing a lot more damage with fake news. Bring on the armageddon?

You sound like a shrill for the MSM. Next you will want to not investigate Hillary Clinton's baby eating activity. :drool:

[Billie from Ockham]

So feel free to include something about this in your employment contract. Do you know what it says in a Drexel contract?

It doesn't need to be contract, it doesn't even need to be written policy, if you bring into question the employer's credibility or reputation, then they have a duty to act because there are other people who depend on the employer for their livelihood.

This is the way it is, so feel free to show me a law of a passage in the human rights act where it says an employer can't take action if you make a fool of yourself on the internet.

I did not intend to be making a legal point by referring to a Drexel contract. My intention was to make it clear that there are simple ways to warn people that you intend to make an issue of their private life. Everything (for me) up to now has concerned proper behavior, not legal behavior.

At some point, maybe a discussion of the legal issues between employer and employee would be useful. I doubt it, but maybe. My doubts start with your request for me to show you something in some human rights act. My guess is that you have never seen a tenure-track's contract.

[CaptainFluffyBunny]

So feel free to include something about this in your employment contract. Do you know what it says in a Drexel contract?

It doesn't need to be contract, it doesn't even need to be written policy, if you bring into question the employer's credibility or reputation, then they have a duty to act because there are other people who depend on the employer for their livelihood.

This is the way it is, so feel free to show me a law of a passage in the human rights act where it says an employer can't take action if you make a fool of yourself on the internet.

So you do agree it is intimidation for the purpose of censorship? Because most everybody with a IQ above room temperature knows that not all professors are in lockstep with their institutions and don't speak for their college/organization.

[Billie from Ockham]

I think that everyone (here) knows that the goal of Sargon et al. is to quash speech. The only issue is whether there are justifiable reasons for an employer to respond to the non-work-related activities of employees with anything other than "thanks for your input" (which is the polite way of saying "fuck off"). Vicky appear to be defending this position. She appears to be arguing that anything that could in any way hurt the business/university, at any time in the future, justifies crossing the line between professional and private, even when you have never explicitly warned the employee of this. I find this PoV to be somewhat terrifying, but can't claim to believe that Vicky is the only one to uphold it.

[VickyCaramel]

So you do agree it is intimidation for the purpose of censorship?

No I don't agree that at all, quite the opposite. This petition is asking for the meeting to be recorded so it can be discussed and analysed.

Jordan Peterson is quite happy to go on the record and defend what he says publicly.
George Ciccariello set his tweets to private and pretended it was just a joke without denying the sentiments he expressed. I would like to hold him accountable for other things he said on Twitter such as, "To clarify: when the whites were massacred during the Haitian Revolution, that was a good thing indeed." and "Make Communism brutal again" which is a hell of a thing for a revolutionary communist to say. I would really like him to be forced to defend his words or not only retract them but denounce this violent and racist rhetoric.

In theory, a university has room for diversity of opinion. If he is intimidated it is mostly likely because he isn't confident that he can convince the university of the virtues of Revolutionary Communism... but I suppose if Communism was convincing they probably wouldn't need armed revolutions.