-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
The question I immediately thought of is this:
“Is that person being pressured to remove his joke/message etc?”
Peer pressure, social engineering, these things exist and has been used to manipulate people to doing things they don’t want to do since the very beginning. Heck I’ve known teenagers that were master manipulators; back when I was a teen (pre-social media btw). What’s the difference between forcing someone to do something via peer pressure/social engineering and media pressure vs forcing someone to do something via laws or political pressure or physical pressure?
Not much if you ask me. The net result is the same, silencing someone because he is disliked.
Personally I just don’t listen to comedians that I don’t like. Really it’s that simple. Comedian “X” says things I don’t like, I don’t listen to him. I don’t have to get all butt hurt and go online and piss and moan on social media, make mean youtube comments (are there any other kind?), en alt.
Do you think there is no social pressure exerted by racist or sexist jokes? Don't those silence people just as readily as social media campaigns—which, I'm sure you'll point out, are just another form of speech? Why are you in favor of free expression in one case, but not the other? You seem to be "pissing and moaning on social media" right now; why don't you just ignore the speech you don't like?
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jere7my
Do you think there is no social pressure exerted by racist or sexist jokes? Don't those silence people just as readily as social media campaigns—which, I'm sure you'll point out, are just another form of speech? Why are you in favor of free expression in one case, but not the other? You seem to be "pissing and moaning on social media" right now; why don't you just ignore the speech you don't like?
Actually I never said I was for or against anything and no I'm not pissing and moaning. I’m trying to get people to think.
Is using social pressure for any reason wrong?
Is it ok for some to use social pressure to fulfill their agenda and not others?
Does that racist or sexist have the right to be racist or sexist and express his views?
If no, then do others who don’t agree with his stance have the right to silence him?
If yes, then does he have the right to silence others with his racist and sexist rhetoric?
is it ok to suppress one person's free expression but not an others free expression?
if so then do we have a double standard?
if we have a double standard, then why?
Where do we draw the line? Is there a line to be drawn? Who should draw that line?
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
So I just came across a video on the subject of making jokes about bad things. Unfortunately I'm fairly certain that Ricky Gervais isn't board appropriate (like, ever) so I'll just summarize his argument here. It's very similar to what I wrote earlier so I might have watched it before and internalized it.
Basically he says that the whole reason we as a species use humour is as a kind of medicine that helps us get over bad things. Whether it's a disaster, a terrorist attack, murder, rape, whatever, joking about it is what allows us to live with it. Therefore jokes about good things are pointless and by trying to prevent jokes about bad things you're just delaying or stopping the healing process.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
The question I immediately thought of is this:
“Is that person being pressured to remove his joke/message etc?”
Peer pressure, social engineering, these things exist and has been used to manipulate people to doing things they don’t want to do since the very beginning. Heck I’ve known teenagers that were master manipulators; back when I was a teen (pre-social media btw). What’s the difference between forcing someone to do something via peer pressure/social engineering and media pressure vs forcing someone to do something via laws or political pressure or physical pressure?
Not much if you ask me. The net result is the same, silencing someone because he is disliked.
Except he's not silenced. He has total freedom to find another platform from which to express his message, including buying his own website, or standing on a public street corner with a sign. What he does not have the right to do is demand that Facebook, Comedy Central, Youtube, or any other privately-owned enterprise give him a megaphone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
Personally I just don’t listen to comedians that I don’t like. Really it’s that simple. Comedian “X” says things I don’t like, I don’t listen to him. I don’t have to get all butt hurt and go online and piss and moan on social media, make mean youtube comments (are there any other kind?), en alt.
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), the right to piss and moan is free speech too. And if private entities choose to respond to that by not hosting you on their platforms, that is their right as well.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pronounceable
That's not how it works.
That's how it works. The sword cuts both ways. You can be as offensive and insulting to people as you want, you'll be successful if you find an audience that approves of it (there'll always be an audience for everything). As free as Dunham is in being a giant ****head for comedy, anyone is just as free to object to it.
Of course you can object to it. That doesn't necessarily mean it shouldn't exist. It goes both ways. Certain groups do not get immunity to satire.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Except he's not silenced. He has total freedom to find another platform from which to express his message, including buying his own website, or standing on a public street corner with a sign. What he does not have the right to do is demand that Facebook, Comedy Central, Youtube, or any other privately-owned enterprise give him a megaphone.
Ok for starters I read your initial post wrong. My bad
In the case that someone is being compensated for his time and effort. Then he has the obligation to speak about what he’s being paid to speak about. Going off the rails as it were will give him a bad reputation that will jeopardize his ability to make money. It’s in his best interest to be consistent in his performances/speeches etc. even in a situation like a comedian that has to change his performance up often to stay fresh, still keeps a consistent style and jokes because that’s what expected of him that’s what an audience will pay to go see.
Additionally I would hope that the owner of a venue would at least be familiar with said speaker’s previous work before hiring him to come to his venue to speak. It’s in his best interests to know what this speaker is going to speak about in a general sense. That way he can promote him and market to the appropriate crowd of people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Unfortunately (or fortunately, depending on your perspective), the right to piss and moan is free speech too. And if private entities choose to respond to that by not hosting you on their platforms, that is their right as well.
Agreed.
But I’ll ask again what happens when one person’s rights infringe upon another person’s rights?
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
But I’ll ask again what happens when one person’s rights infringe upon another person’s rights?
If we're talking about legal rights from both sides, and not personal tastes / sensibility, then it's probably time for lawyers.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Complaining about things being too soon isn't just a modern thing.
Apparently, some people Saved from the Titanic was too soon (in this case: 29 days after the event). In its defence, the main star was one of the survivors.
List of films about the Titanic.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
Ok for starters I read your initial post wrong. My bad
In the case that someone is being compensated for his time and effort. Then he has the obligation to speak about what he’s being paid to speak about. Going off the rails as it were will give him a bad reputation that will jeopardize his ability to make money. It’s in his best interest to be consistent in his performances/speeches etc. even in a situation like a comedian that has to change his performance up often to stay fresh, still keeps a consistent style and jokes because that’s what expected of him that’s what an audience will pay to go see.
Additionally I would hope that the owner of a venue would at least be familiar with said speaker’s previous work before hiring him to come to his venue to speak. It’s in his best interests to know what this speaker is going to speak about in a general sense. That way he can promote him and market to the appropriate crowd of people.
But even having that general sense ahead of time isn't always enough. When the Laugh Factory brought Michael Richards in back in 2006, they were very familiar with his existing body of work (as Kramer + his standup.) He wasn't an unknown by any stretch of the imagination. And yet, I doubt they knew back then that he'd launch into an extremely racially-charged tirade that would end up making the news and besmirch their reputation. (And it's not like he went in intending to do that either - he just got caught up in the heat of the moment during a badly bombing set.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
Agreed.
But I’ll ask again what happens when one person’s rights infringe upon another person’s rights?
Your question is moot in this case though - when a private entity chooses what material/message it wants or does not want to host, no one's rights are being infringed. Getting a gig at a comedy club is not a right. Having a Facebook profile or Youtube account is not a right.
As for competing rights - which again doesn't apply here - this is what the courts are for, so I can't get into it in detail. One example is how a public protester on a street corner with a megaphone (free speech) is not allowed to do so at 2 in the morning in a residential area (right to peace and quiet wins.)
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
But even having that general sense ahead of time isn't always enough. When the Laugh Factory brought Michael Richards in back in 2006, they were very familiar with his existing body of work (as Kramer + his standup.) He wasn't an unknown by any stretch of the imagination. And yet, I doubt they knew back then that he'd launch into an extremely racially-charged tirade that would end up making the news and besmirch their reputation. (And it's not like he went in intending to do that either - he just got caught up in the heat of the moment during a badly bombing set.)
What exactly are you trying to get at? What you describe is the same thing I described. Mr. Richards went off the rails so to speak at a performance and now his reputation (and unfortunately laugh factory’s rep as well) is in the toilet. He’s reaping the consequences of his actions (an extremely unprofessional and racist rant). What happened to Mr. Richards is exactly what should have happened to him for going so far off the rails in an insulting derogatory manner. Did Mr. Richards have the right to do so? Yes he did. But he failed to realize the consequences for his actions and as a result he suffered a huge reputation hit and is likely hard up for work.
It’s unfortunately that laugh factory is (unjustly) suffering for the actions of the person they brought in but that is a risk (usually a very small one) they have to take being in the entertainment business. They had no way of knowing he would do what he did. If they did, they wouldn’t have brought him on. Just like I’m sure he had no idea he was going to do that when he stepped out on stage. This sort of thing is actually quite uncommon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Your question is moot in this case though - when a private entity chooses what material/message it wants or does not want to host, no one's rights are being infringed. Getting a gig at a comedy club is not a right. Having a Facebook profile or Youtube account is not a right.
As for competing rights - which again doesn't apply here - this is what the courts are for, so I can't get into it in detail. One example is how a public protester on a street corner with a megaphone (free speech) is not allowed to do so at 2 in the morning in a residential area (right to peace and quiet wins.)
How is it a mute point? How does it not apply?
As a citizen of a free country I want to know how far my rights extend. Where do my rights end and another's rights begin? Yes courts exist and laws exist for usually good reason (there are unfair courts and unjust laws still in the world today but I digress), and they exist for legal reasons. But what about between two people on the street, in a house you know outside of a court case. Where do they draw the line? where does one person say "ok now you're infringing on my rights". ?
These are important things to define if we want to have a civilization that's actually you know civil.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
How is it a mute point? How does it not apply?
As a citizen of a free country I want to know how far my rights extend. Where do my rights end and another's rights begin? Yes courts exist and laws exist for usually good reason (there are unfair courts and unjust laws still in the world today but I digress), and they exist for legal reasons. But what about between two people on the street, in a house you know outside of a court case. Where do they draw the line? where does one person say "ok now you're infringing on my rights". ?
These are important things to define if we want to have a civilization that's actually you know civil.
It doesn't apply because say you are on the street and someone is saying things you don't want to hear. Neither of you have any rights that are being violated here. They have no particular right to be listened to and you have no particular right to not be offended by what you're hearing. In terms of a private establishment, the owner tends to have the final say in how can be allowed in the place. As such they can kick you out if you're saying stuff they dislike. Barring things like discrimination based on a protected class, no rights are being violated here. Without discrimination coming into play the only rights in play here are property rights.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
What exactly are you trying to get at? What you describe is the same thing I described. Mr. Richards went off the rails so to speak at a performance and now his reputation (and unfortunately laugh factory’s rep as well) is in the toilet. He’s reaping the consequences of his actions (an extremely unprofessional and racist rant). What happened to Mr. Richards is exactly what should have happened to him for going so far off the rails in an insulting derogatory manner. Did Mr. Richards have the right to do so? Yes he did. But he failed to realize the consequences for his actions and as a result he suffered a huge reputation hit and is likely hard up for work.
It’s unfortunately that laugh factory is (unjustly) suffering for the actions of the person they brought in but that is a risk (usually a very small one) they have to take being in the entertainment business. They had no way of knowing he would do what he did. If they did, they wouldn’t have brought him on. Just like I’m sure he had no idea he was going to do that when he stepped out on stage. This sort of thing is actually quite uncommon.
I can't speak for how common or uncommon it is; I was merely countering your assertion that venues/platforms always know what the person they're bringing in will say and the impact it might have on their reputation. The fact is that they don't, even for a well-known performer, and so they are taking a risk by doing so. If they make the business decision not to take on that risk as a private enterprise, then said performer or speaker has to find other outlets, but their rights have not been infringed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
How is it a mute point? How does it not apply?
As a citizen of a free country I want to know how far my rights extend. Where do my rights end and another's rights begin? Yes courts exist and laws exist for usually good reason (there are unfair courts and unjust laws still in the world today but I digress), and they exist for legal reasons. But what about between two people on the street, in a house you know outside of a court case. Where do they draw the line? where does one person say "ok now you're infringing on my rights". ?
These are important things to define if we want to have a civilization that's actually you know civil.
Where the line exists (and where it should exist) is indeed a meaningful discussion to have. However, we can't do so here because law and politics are against the forum rules. I was merely pointing out that the line does exist, which is about all we can really say.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Personally I believe it's never too soon.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chen
It doesn't apply because say you are on the street and someone is saying things you don't want to hear. Neither of you have any rights that are being violated here. They have no particular right to be listened to and you have no particular right to not be offended by what you're hearing..
You’re missing the point. People have the right to take offense, but what happens when they use their free speech to try to shut that person up? Say by social pressure; which is something we see all the time. Some celebrity will make some mean comment or tweet about something and the world starts attacking him for being mean, or a hater or any other common attack words used now until finally that celebrity issues an apology for saying something mean.
Now it’s safe to assume that this celebrity is saying whatever offensive thing he said to attract attention. But that may not always be the case. Look at Mel Gibson; he went on an anti-semitic rant while drunk (and pulled over by the cops) and now his career is in the toilet. Did he do that for attention? I highly doubt it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chen
In terms of a private establishment, the owner tends to have the final say in how can be allowed in the place. As such they can kick you out if you're saying stuff they dislike. Barring things like discrimination based on a protected class, no rights are being violated here. Without discrimination coming into play the only rights in play here are property rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
I can't speak for how common or uncommon it is; I was merely countering your assertion that venues/platforms always know what the person they're bringing in will say and the impact it might have on their reputation. The fact is that they don't, even for a well-known performer, and so they are taking a risk by doing so. If they make the business decision not to take on that risk as a private enterprise, then said performer or speaker has to find other outlets, but their rights have not been infringed.
Well yeah, you pays your money (hopefully not up front) and you takes your chances. You can assume that the speaker you hired won’t go too far off the rails like Mr. Richards did. But you never know for certain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Where the line exists (and where it should exist) is indeed a meaningful discussion to have. However, we can't do so here because law and politics are against the forum rules. I was merely pointing out that the line does exist, which is about all we can really say.
True that. I think I’m done with this thread, talking about this stuff gets exhausting.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
Look at Mel Gibson; he went on an anti-semitic rant while drunk (and pulled over by the cops) and now his career is in the toilet. Did he do that for attention? I highly doubt it.
Isn't this more a case of "you're free to say whatever you want, but the rest of the world is free to react in unpleasant was? "
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheThan
You’re missing the point. People have the right to take offense, but what happens when they use their free speech to try to shut that person up? Say by social pressure; which is something we see all the time. Some celebrity will make some mean comment or tweet about something and the world starts attacking him for being mean, or a hater or any other common attack words used now until finally that celebrity issues an apology for saying something mean.
What exactly is the problem here? No rights are being violated. It's merely an example of actions having consequences. If you say something people really dislike, well there's going to be pushback. You have the right to not have the government interfere with your free speech (with certain exceptions). They can't do things or threaten you or whatever to prevent you from saying what you want to say. Other people though? They can do whatever they want, within legal bounds, to incentivize you to not say things. Be it social pressure, barring from establishments or simply no longer interacting with you.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chen
What exactly is the problem here? No rights are being violated. It's merely an example of actions having consequences. If you say something people really dislike, well there's going to be pushback. You have the right to not have the government interfere with your free speech (with certain exceptions). They can't do things or threaten you or whatever to prevent you from saying what you want to say. Other people though? They can do whatever they want, within legal bounds, to incentivize you to not say things. Be it social pressure, barring from establishments or simply no longer interacting with you.
But it crosses the line when you demand people be fired for saying something you don't like. I'm not talking about a boss firing an employee due to harm against the company's image. I'm talking about "the public" demanding the boss fire an employee where as the employee's speech had nothing to do with his work, was said by the employee's own volition of a personal opinion, and the only "offensive" thing about it was it disagreed with the opinion of those demanding the firing. It has happened. Sometimes all it takes is wearing a shirt given as a gift by co-workers or has the American flag.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pex
But it crosses the line when you demand people be fired for saying something you don't like. I'm not talking about a boss firing an employee due to harm against the company's image. I'm talking about "the public" demanding the boss fire an employee where as the employee's speech had nothing to do with his work, was said by the employee's own volition of a personal opinion, and the only "offensive" thing about it was it disagreed with the opinion of those demanding the firing. It has happened. Sometimes all it takes is wearing a shirt given as a gift by co-workers or has the American flag.
I don't think "this person should be fired" is really the common form the backlash takes. More often its "We're boycotting the establishment this person works for and encourage others to do the same" (which is, obviously, their right as private citizens to support whatever business they want) and then the higher-ups there conclude that firing the problematic individual or asking for their resignation is a good move.
The few times I do see "this person should be fired" it's usually because the prominence of their position makes it so that they are speaking for the organization as a whole. An example would be the Mozilla CEO kerfluffle - he has every right to his personal views, but as CEO he also represents the company as a whole and so there was a conflict between hi private opinions and his professional role.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
I don't think "this person should be fired" is really the common form the backlash takes. More often its "We're boycotting the establishment this person works for and encourage others to do the same" (which is, obviously, their right as private citizens to support whatever business they want) and then the higher-ups there conclude that firing the problematic individual or asking for their resignation is a good move.
The few times I do see "this person should be fired" it's usually because the prominence of their position makes it so that they are speaking for the organization as a whole. An example would be the Mozilla CEO kerfluffle - he has every right to his personal views, but as CEO he also represents the company as a whole and so there was a conflict between hi private opinions and his professional role.
It happens way too often in education, the most glaring story I heard where a Prof was being accused of being a racist and anti-Sematic when a sentence he said was taken out of context (the class was about WW2 and the Nazis). I can't remember all the details, but I think the prof was telling what the Nazi's beliefs were, and a student accused him of holding those beliefs.
I can't remember the end consequences, but he did have to fight for his job, and he was mentally and physically harassed by the public. (he may have lost his job, I don't know)
Now that sort of crap happens way too often for my comfort.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Education is a special case though as most teachers are government employees. So the public are literally paying their salary and do have somewhat of a say in the content/message as a result. It's not quite the same as, say, a self-employed comedian or even a business executive making an off-color comment.
For a private institution, I agree, the message should be more "we disagree and have chosen not to patronize this establishment," with the school then making the business/ethical/moral decision that results.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
I don't think "this person should be fired" is really the common form the backlash takes. More often its "We're boycotting the establishment this person works for and encourage others to do the same" (which is, obviously, their right as private citizens to support whatever business they want) and then the higher-ups there conclude that firing the problematic individual or asking for their resignation is a good move.
The few times I do see "this person should be fired" it's usually because the prominence of their position makes it so that they are speaking for the organization as a whole. An example would be the Mozilla CEO kerfluffle - he has every right to his personal views, but as CEO he also represents the company as a whole and so there was a conflict between hi private opinions and his professional role.
"A few times" is a few times too many. Being a CEO of a company does not forever forbid him from expressing an opinion people don't like or be forced to resign. Demanding someone be fired is a common thing. People have lost their businesses.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
Education is a special case though as most teachers are government employees. So the public are literally paying their salary and do have somewhat of a say in the content/message as a result. It's not quite the same as, say, a self-employed comedian or even a business executive making an off-color comment.
For a private institution, I agree, the message should be more "we disagree and have chosen not to patronize this establishment," with the school then making the business/ethical/moral decision that results.
To a certain extent sure, but these days it seems far too rigid, or parents are far less intolerant of their children being exposed to ideas they don't personally agree with.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Forum Explorer
To a certain extent sure, but these days it seems far too rigid, or parents are far less intolerant of their children being exposed to ideas they don't personally agree with.
I'm not sure this is actually more common "these days." It used to be the norm for teachers to be fired for so-called moral reasons: being gay, or getting a divorce, or having extramarital sex. That still happens, of course—I have teacher friends who have to keep their private lives private, and Melanie Martinez was famously fired as host of a PBS kids' show because she'd made a satirical video about a sex act years before—but it's no longer nigh-universally accepted that a gay teacher is unfit to have contact with kids. We hear more about high-profile cases, but overall tolerance tends to increase with time.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pex
"A few times" is a few times too many. Being a CEO of a company does not forever forbid him from expressing an opinion people don't like or be forced to resign. Demanding someone be fired is a common thing. People have lost their businesses.
No, but what it means is that he needs to lead a company that shares his values, or at the very least one that doesn't wish to be tainted by association. The simple fact is that the conflict between his views and those of the company as a whole (which supports the kinds of rights he was opposing) was costing them both clients and talent. Fit matters a great deal, especially at that level of management.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Psyren
No, but what it means is that he needs to lead a company that shares his values, or at the very least one that doesn't wish to be tainted by association. The simple fact is that the conflict between his views and those of the company as a whole (which supports the kinds of rights he was opposing) was costing them both clients and talent. Fit matters a great deal, especially at that level of management.
Since when should a person's personal opinion on a political point be a qualification/disqualification for being hired for a job, barring lobbyists, campaign staff, and other overt political organizations of course?
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pex
Since when should a person's personal opinion on a political point be a qualification/disqualification for being hired for a job, barring lobbyists, campaign staff, and other overt political organizations of course?
Depends on the political point. A point that could possibly lead to discrimination or discriminatory attitudes in the company are certainly one that could impact employees. Thoughts on monetary policy could end up having some sort of effects on worker remuneration.
In the ends the exact details aren't terribly relevant. The technical expertise/products a company produce are certainly one way they maintain customers. But their public perception is another big one. And that one can be very closely linked with the public perception of its employees. As you get higher up on the employee totem pole, the more and more visibility there is towards that person's personal beliefs and how those beliefs reflect on the company.
-
Re: Tragedies and entertainment - When is it no longer "too soon"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chen
Depends on the political point. A point that could possibly lead to discrimination or discriminatory attitudes in the company are certainly one that could impact employees. Thoughts on monetary policy could end up having some sort of effects on worker remuneration.
In the ends the exact details aren't terribly relevant. The technical expertise/products a company produce are certainly one way they maintain customers. But their public perception is another big one. And that one can be very closely linked with the public perception of its employees. As you get higher up on the employee totem pole, the more and more visibility there is towards that person's personal beliefs and how those beliefs reflect on the company.
2016, the new 1984
Who gets to decide what is the appropriate political point? Who gets to define discrimination? Who gets to decide it is Incorrect Thinking to disagree on something? Who are the Thought Police?