DBTrek wrote:
... as to Bjorn’s points - Bjorn is in a union, so of course he benefits greatly from them. Just as monopolists benefit greatly from excluding market competition, so to do labor unions benefit greatly from excluding non-union labor from competition. I get why he likes them. I just find them to be a drag on the economy and useless (or detrimental) to anyone but union members.
US labor unions and labor market and Danish ditto don't really seem to have much in common. Collective bargaining agreements between labor unions federations and the big organizations representing the employers, don't allow for forced union membership. And it's easy to fire non-union labor (don't need any reason at all), you can still fire unionized labor for reasons such as incompetence, too many sick days, showing up late and drunk, that sort of thing. The collective bargaining agreements they make benefit non-union employees in terms of wage levels, and working conditions.
We’re reaching a disturbing point in American discourse where increasingly both sides of the national debate (it’s not the Left that’s driving the firestorm against Jarrar) are looking for ways to justify and rationalize censorship and suppression of offensive views. If the censorship comes through a public employer or government entity, then the Twitterati transforms into a squad of hapless law students, hunting through the results of hasty Google searches to find just the right exceptions to the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence — exceptions that allow for the infamous phrase, “I believe in free speech, but . . .”
If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
We’re reaching a disturbing point in American discourse where increasingly both sides of the national debate (it’s not the Left that’s driving the firestorm against Jarrar) are looking for ways to justify and rationalize censorship and suppression of offensive views. If the censorship comes through a public employer or government entity, then the Twitterati transforms into a squad of hapless law students, hunting through the results of hasty Google searches to find just the right exceptions to the relevant First Amendment jurisprudence — exceptions that allow for the infamous phrase, “I believe in free speech, but . . .”
If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.
I can only remember Jimmy the Greek who was fired for his offensive speech. Listen to this and judge how offensive it is. This is where the intolerance started. In the 70s you could say WTF you wanted. Then they went after Jimmy the Greek
Postby Hanarchy Montanarchy » Fri Apr 20, 2018 4:27 am
Yeah, that one is some 1st Gen, SJW-Classic. Back when they still called it PC, maybe even a little before (I don't know when PC really came into vogue as a phrase).
Good times, good times.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.
Retarded quote of the day.
Private employers can't violate your First Amendment rights, only the government can.
I can see why this guy is your celebrity crush, HM.
Birds of a feather . . .
If the suppression comes through private employers, then it’s easier to justify. From the left — “Sure, The Atlantic can fire a conservative.” From the right — “Get those damn football players off their knees.” Both sides eagerly obliterate the culture of free speech in the quest to cleanse the marketplace of ideas we don’t like.
Retarded quote of the day.
Private employers can't violate your First Amendment rights, only the government can.
I can see why this guy is your celebrity crush, HM.
Birds of a feather . . .
Don't blame French for how I presented the article. The link was just a pithy line I liked, nobody is arguing that speech suppression is automatically a first amendment violation.
HAIL!
Her needs America so they won't just take his shit away like in some pussy non gun totting countries can happen.
-Hwen
Dude, weasel-worded misdirections can’t save you at this point. Your posts have moved too deeply into the stupid zone for those common progressive tools to lend you aid. You’re just going to have to live with your ridiculous statements and links at this point.
/shrug
