No you weren't wondering what the relevance of the post was, you were trying to imply that I saw the two circumstances as equal. Be real. Despite the cause of the day I didn't work, the similar effects are I had to attend what I felt was propaganda instead of performing my job. Propaganda isn't exaggerating too because I thought the company that I worked for was slightly evil, but that word means nothing to you. Not the word "evil, but "slightly".(friendly joke) I realize there is a difference, but there are similarities as well. I chose to bring earbuds and ignore the entire company function and this an option that these factory workers have as well. I understand that this current political scenario has differences, but it doesn't mean my posts are "questionable" or "irrelevant" because I posted what I did or how I felt based on the effect of missing work, not the cause. The relevance is the majority of those people, despite their political beliefs would probably rather sit in a chair and zone out, than put in a hard days work. That's no knock on them, as I previously admitted that's what I preferred. That was my first post in 20 years in the Debate thread and I really didn't even pick a side, and you clearly tried to minimize my sharing of something I felt was relevant. I didn't solve the problem or pick a side, so that makes my post irrelevant. I guess what gets me is "questionable posts get questioned". I know you're an intelligent person and I sincerely believe that you were capable of seeing some similarity or relevance, you just chose not to because you wanted to steer the conversation into what you believe and what is relevant to you. After reminding you that I said "slightly similar", you had to double down instead of just taking my post at face value.
Not sure what this has to do with forcing workers to attend a political rally or not get paid. In any case, it was you should stood by the freedom of speech of not just racists, but hate mongers with an agenda, but then were opposed to freedom of speech of someone who actually acted on that hate. The substance of both are very similar - so it's fair to ask why you opposed hate speech in one instance but approve of it in another.
It has to do with you asking me about the Obama rally I would ****ing love to get paid to go to one I wasn't opposed to freedom of speech in the manifest thread. The newspaper gpes out its way to publish it. That was the point. That is a decision they make. Edit: iow a guy posts his hate online. He has a right. The newspaper doesn't have to promote it by publishing it after dude kills a bunch of people Not sure what's hard to understand
Obama isn't the point of it. You post a lot of right-wing posts so I used Obama to help make it relevant to you. What if we said it was forced to watch someone you disliked - say it was AOC. Or maybe someone you really despised??? If the guy has a right to post and promote hate online, why doesn't the newspaper have a right to report on what he is doing and his manifesto? Seems like you have a double standard here. The newspaper is no different that the individual. In fact, the whole notion of a corporation is to impart the rights an individual has onto that entity.
For the umpteenth ****ung time you asked me about an obama rally ASSuming im a Republican. See post#10 dumbass Secondly what right wing stuff do i post. Lastly i never said the newspaper didn't have a right to post that ****. I said they responsibly shouldn't not to promote another idiot fom killing a bunch of people to be heard Its one thing to project someone's thoughts. Its another to continue after you have been corrected
@Sweet Lou 4 2 Everyone knows the argument against newspapers publishing manifests Stop acting like a dumbass to continue an argument you lost 2 threads ago
Good think McFail isn’t still coaching the Rockets or they’d be forced to attend a Trump rally or get benched.
I think it was rather stupid thing to do although I could not care less what private companies do as long as they follow laws. Had the company I work for done something like this it would had made me mad whether it been Trump, Obama, or any past President but I likely would have gone and just tuned it out if it was something I did not care to hear. If the company does anything retaliatory to anyone that chose not to attend then I think they should be held accountable.
Don’t project. I really was trying to figure the relevance of bringing up a company sponsored event where the company was speaking on its products or roadmap (or whatever) to company employees. To equate it to this, a company sponsored political rally for a polarizing figure, even “slightly” seems to entirely miss the point about why many are offended by the concept. If one’s mere presence is enough to give the appearance of supporting said polarizing figure, regardless of earbuds or diverted attention, and to have one’s company incentivize that rally, it thereby penalizes those who will not be coerced to the appearance of supporting with their attendance. Sorry, if you feel attacked, but I found your comparison lacking. Tripled down.
