I said it yesterday, he's an idiot. There is no point to what he's done. And the (excellent) wording he used during the RNC will bury him.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2016 |OT11| Well this is exciting
- Thread starter Crayons
- Start date
- Status
I said it yesterday, he's an idiot. There is no point to what he's done. And the (excellent) wording he used during the RNC will bury him.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
Explain his loss without making it about his positions then.
shinra-bansho
Member
Allan Lichtman's prediction system is kind of interesting. He thinks we're headed for a generic R victory under normal circumstances, but Trump is not normal.
I'd be for a law protecting almost all employees from being fired for their non-criminal activity outside of work (perhaps with some other exceptions like sharing company secrets or whatever, but at the same time you want to protect whistle-blowing). I think a hate speech exemption would also be workable - other countries actually just have laws against hate speech and are still democracies - but probably makes it harder to enact.
The "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" thing is just a weirdly libertarian idea coming from liberals who in all other cases understand that your liberty needs to be protected not just from the government but from private actors who for whatever reason have power over you. Freedom just is freedom from consequences - if you're going to face severe consequences for doing something, it's pretty silly to say that you're technically free to do it, and in other contexts the only people making this argument are libertarians because of their commitment to principles that liberals don't generally agree with.
The obvious exception to a law like this would be people whose job is to be personally appealing to people. You can drop a sponsorship of an athlete if they make you look bad, because you've only sponsored them in the first place to make you look good. There are fuzzy cases like PR people, where sometimes they're supposed to be engaged with the community in a seemingly organic way (like Major Nelson for XBox), but sometimes there's a pretty clear separation between their private lives and their PR work. We also now see a bunch of CEOs acting as public faces for their companies - like Steve Jobs - where clearly their personal brand is important to the work they're doing. I guess you could argue that it's reasonable for a company to worry about having an offensive CEO in a way that it isn't for them to worry about having an offensive office drone, but I don't know what the basis for this worry is other than customers seeing it that way too, and part of the problem here is that customers also protest occasionally when they don't like the politics of even lower-level employees. My sense is that Luckey is important enough to Oculus' brand that there's a case for being able to fire him here, and certainly just in general we don't need to be nearly as worried about workplace protection for people like Luckey as we do for fry cooks, but I still think it's a little weird to feel like Facebook must fire him or they're endorsing his views.
The "freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences" thing is just a weirdly libertarian idea coming from liberals who in all other cases understand that your liberty needs to be protected not just from the government but from private actors who for whatever reason have power over you. Freedom just is freedom from consequences - if you're going to face severe consequences for doing something, it's pretty silly to say that you're technically free to do it, and in other contexts the only people making this argument are libertarians because of their commitment to principles that liberals don't generally agree with.
The obvious exception to a law like this would be people whose job is to be personally appealing to people. You can drop a sponsorship of an athlete if they make you look bad, because you've only sponsored them in the first place to make you look good. There are fuzzy cases like PR people, where sometimes they're supposed to be engaged with the community in a seemingly organic way (like Major Nelson for XBox), but sometimes there's a pretty clear separation between their private lives and their PR work. We also now see a bunch of CEOs acting as public faces for their companies - like Steve Jobs - where clearly their personal brand is important to the work they're doing. I guess you could argue that it's reasonable for a company to worry about having an offensive CEO in a way that it isn't for them to worry about having an offensive office drone, but I don't know what the basis for this worry is other than customers seeing it that way too, and part of the problem here is that customers also protest occasionally when they don't like the politics of even lower-level employees. My sense is that Luckey is important enough to Oculus' brand that there's a case for being able to fire him here, and certainly just in general we don't need to be nearly as worried about workplace protection for people like Luckey as we do for fry cooks, but I still think it's a little weird to feel like Facebook must fire him or they're endorsing his views.
More than likely he'll get taken out during the Republican primary for his senate seat, assuming he won't be able to rebound from this.
metalslimer
Member
Watching Bush Jr speak at the opening of the African American History Museum. And dear lord while I hate his presidency, I do believe he tries to be a good person. While his policies hurt millions of people, I don't think they came from a place of malice. I couldn't in a million years see Trump caring enough to show up to this kind of event.
Just watched him speak, too.
It took the threat of Donald fucking Trump to make me think on Bush Jr with something less than intense dislike.
WHO'S THAT AT THE DOOR
Dubya was an idiot who let his cabinet walk all over him and got a bit of an ego especially post 9/11. When left to his own devices he could have been more like his dad, I have no doubt. I do honestly question if he was intelligent enough to actually be an effective President though.
Godzilla's Left Toe
Member
Bush Jr is a likable guy who was way in over his head Trump is an outright evil person.
metalslimer
Member
I remember thinking foolishly that Bush being so unliked would be the transition for Republicans for the better lol.
I still will always have a bad taste in my mouth for his use of Rovian tactics against gay rights.
This is where I'm at with him. I don't think he's a bad person. Just some terrible policy and Dick Cheney as Vice President
AntraxSuicide
Banned
I think a pretty quick loophole to this is that you're not firing such a person for their beliefs, but the damage they've caused. Honestly, if you could find a single person who says, "I won't give you my business as long as Employee X works here," then you could probably have reason to fire that person as far as this law is concerned.
That's the real meaning behind "freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequence." In a case like this (assuming we're talking about the Oculus guy), you can't force people to buy the product. That's a consequence. You also can't force people to keep reviews of your product to themselves (that is, they're allowed to tell their friends why they won't buy your product). That's a consequence. You can't force people to disband groups calling for boycotts either. So when those boycotts hurt your bottom line, that's a consequence.
Now that's real entertainment.
You people and your car pool singing is what is decaying the moral fiber of this great nation.
Just 537 votes would have invalidated his entire model though.
Yeah, particularly since they are basically throwing out 2000, since they'd be saying they were right either way.
2000?
Finale Fireworker
Member
But if it's that easy, what does that say of his Trump prediction?
shinra-bansho
Member
If I went around saying racist crap though I'd probably be fired I imagine.
For services sectors in general, not just public faces, your professional personal brand is part of your job and the product.
For services sectors in general, not just public faces, your professional personal brand is part of your job and the product.
Predicts Bush will win: Hey I was right
Predicts Gore will win: Hey I was right if you look at the popular vote.
metalslimer
Member
I couldn't even imagine the vast majority of republican congressman doing such a thing even though any of our recent terrorists attacks pale in comparison to 9/11.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
Close your eyes and listen to this, that sounds exactly like Trump. Haha
History will remember Craig as a top tier late night host. No doubt in my mind. The last bastion of punk rock television on network TV.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
She should get on First We Feast since she is a hot sauce connoisseur.
Box of Kittens
Banned
The thing about 2000 is that it was in some sense the easiest of all elections to predict because one can claim "victory" either way. Lichtman predicted a Gore victory based on his keys then retroactively decided that they really predict the popular vote winner instead of the electoral vote winner.
What I would say is that several of the elections in that time frame were very easy to predict (1984 and 2008, for example). If his keys have little predictive value then his performance so far is something like calling the results of 2-3 coin flips in a row correctly. I wouldn't be overly concerned with his prediction, especially given how much hedging he did in the interview I read.
What I would say is that several of the elections in that time frame were very easy to predict (1984 and 2008, for example). If his keys have little predictive value then his performance so far is something like calling the results of 2-3 coin flips in a row correctly. I wouldn't be overly concerned with his prediction, especially given how much hedging he did in the interview I read.
Best interviewer on late night ever.
Sure, this looks like a way to argue that you're not firing someone for something they're doing outside of work. So of course a law protecting people for what they do outside of work should not allow this sort of indirect reasoning either.
Like, obviously we don't think that companies should be able to serve or fire or refuse to hire people for being black because customers might not want to buy from a company that employs or serves black people. This was a big part of why anti-black discrimination happened - I'm sure there were a bunch of white hotel owners who would have been basically fine letting a black person stay in a room that would otherwise go empty that night, but they didn't want to be known as a hotel that let rooms to black people. So this seems to me like a necessary part of a workplace protection law. You don't just say that the company can impose its politics on its employees. You go farther and say that employees are also protected from customers that try to pressure the company into firing them. In other words: libertarians are wrong when they say that the market will end discrimination because non-discriminating companies will be able to pay less for better talent or will do more business because they let discriminated-against customers buy from them.
And of course, if it's actually illegal for the company to fire an employee, then the company has a pretty persuasive defense against the protesters, right? It's pretty silly to boycott a company and say you won't buy their product unless they fire someone when the company isn't allowed to fire the person.
I want to stress that it's not like this is the sort of thing that would only protect racists. I bet most people who get fired for speech outside of work get fired for complaining about their job. And of course the company has a really clear defense of this in terms of consequences to its bottom line - if customers know how they operate behind the scenes then they might not want to buy from them! I would bet that more people have to worry about being fired for being pro-BLM than for being racist too. And while I'm not sure that there is right now a clear but somewhat widespread "[minority] is not evil" position that typically risks firing in the way that gay rights advocacy did a while ago, probably there will be another one someday soon.
Undisputed. Even more apparent with terrible interviewers like Fallon who are so scripted and fake it's stunning.
Knuckle Sandwich
Member
Tom Snyder though...
I'd put him neck-and-neck with Conan (once Conan hit his stride). And for the record, I'd take him over Corden any day.
Losing him was a tragedy for late night comedy, and he deserves much better than a game show. He's on my short list of comedy folks whom I wish had made a bigger splash. In my universe, the Apatow-types would be footnotes and the Fergusons & Sedarises would be super-mega-stars.
Pewdiepie
Nate is currently attempting to defend 538's model on Twitter.
It's strange as I find his model to overcompensate for normal electoral shifts during an election. Like he is abnormally weighting divisive polls in order to shift the model in a certain direction.
It is also offset with his horse race narrative he has been pushing this entire election. Almost as if his website is benefiting from increased clicks by bedwetters and the alt-right alike.
It's strange as I find his model to overcompensate for normal electoral shifts during an election. Like he is abnormally weighting divisive polls in order to shift the model in a certain direction.
It is also offset with his horse race narrative he has been pushing this entire election. Almost as if his website is benefiting from increased clicks by bedwetters and the alt-right alike.
Oh god. Nothing would complete this trash year more than this.
Basileus777
Member
That Gen Z vote isn't particularly valuable yet.
Is it weirdly libertarian? Liberals might be okay with letting businesses fire people under these circumstances because the effect it has on society isn't hugely negative.
I want to live in that universe.
Yup. His shows comes on DecadesTV twice a day, so I try to catch him a few times a week. A few weeks ago he had Charlton Heston reading poetry.. caught me by surprise.
Watching him interview John Lydon in a cloud of cigarette smoke is one of my early childhood memories. I got to stay up late one night and I didn't know what I was watching, but I knew it was awesome.
sazzy
Member
NYTimes has endorsed Trump for President
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/o...ol-top-region&WT.nav=opinion-c-col-top-region
Dubbedinenglish
Banned
Yes but the Failing New York Times endorses Clinton
AntraxSuicide
Banned
You just sort of hand wave how to cover my argument though. I mean, surely incompetence is grounds for firing, right? I don't see a world where damaged sales isn't being incompetent. You could argue that I'm not being honest when I claim that as my reason for termination, but you'd never be able to prove that.
As for discrimination, I don't fundamentally put political opinions in the same category at all.
I don't really understand where you're going with that. The big philosophical difference between liberals and libertarians is that liberals are concerned with maximizing liberty full stop whereas libertarians are concerned only with the ways that the government can reduce liberty (with a small number of exceptions for things like murder). A libertarian would agree but put this in terms of negative and positive liberty. "Freedom from speech is not freedom from consequences" is often used to defend inflicting incredibly severe punishments on people just because it's society and not the government doing the inflicting. That's basically as far as the analysis ever goes.
But sure, I agree that mostly the reason that some liberals endorse this idea is that they have this sense that it's working to their advantage right now. As I said, I'm not actually sure that this is true - I suspect they're fooled by the high-profile man bites dog "CEO fired for racist tweets" stuff into overlooking the much more common occasions where employers can inappropriately exercise their power over low-level employees. But regardless, that does not mean that it's consistent with their principles. Like, what is the liberal argument that there shouldn't just be government-imposed fines for speech that they would be happy to see render people unemployable? I haven't really ever seen one. I've seen what's clearly a libertarian argument for this, though, which depends on a magical distinction between government and private action.
This is often also just nakedly punitive in a way that I don't think is antithetical to liberalism but is at least inconsistent with other trends in modern liberal thought.
One of his later interviews with Bette Davis is still one of my favorites. The whole thing is on YouTube.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked