That'd be nice if that's all it was. But bullies come from all backgrounds. And there are MANY. It's not a few "true bullies" it is a LOT OF FUCKING MONSTERS out there. Saying "there's only a few real ones" lets most people say to themselves (or their parents think about them) that no matter how bad little Timmy/Marcy is, s/he's not a REAL monster.The truly bad, horrible bullies are generally getting it worse at home. Which is also sad.
[citation needed]
Tress, if you have a school-age kid, ask them who's the person who's least popular in their class. If they start saying about how "weird" they are, or some other language that justifies being abusive, congratulations, your kid is a bully. If they're just awkward about somebody, then they're probably just on the sidelines and not actively bullying, but not stopping it either. If they were standing up against it, you'd already know, since they'd either A) be telling you about it, or B) be the victim of abuse themselves for trying to help, or C) they are already the victim and hopefully you already knew that.
That's basically where I am at.
Fuck off, asshole.
Seconded.
Classic libertarians, thinking the wall is all about them, and not the freaking necromantic ice elves...
Being a white supremacist is not a protected class and it is not equivalent to being LGBTQ. There might be a line where this becomes a tricky subject but this isn't anywhere near it.
The way current law is, if you count Airbnb as a public accommodation (hotel), then it kinda does come near it.
There were no violations of free speech. None whatsoever. Period. The end. Next case! As private companies they are not bound by the First Amendment. They want to ban nazis, they are well within their rights to do so. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of consequences, either. So if you want to voice an unpopular opinion in public, you better be well prepared for the blowback.
Most hotels have signs conspicuously posted saying "We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Anyone." Nazis would tend to be covered there.
I don't disagree with you on google, employment is not a right, after all, but I'd just like to point out that using "end of discussion" on a discussion forum just makes you sound more like you're afraid of discussion rather than "clearly in the right."
Better?
Link to the original document https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf
In additionl, what Google did by firing the person was likely illegal https://www.inc.com/suzanne-lucas/nogoogle-should-not-have-fired-the-anti-diversity-.htmlThat link says that in California expressing political opinions are also protected by law there.
That sign is not a legal document.[DOUBLEPOST=1502302918,1502302819][/DOUBLEPOST]
You just changed the verbiage but you're still saying the same thingBetter?
Ignore the fact of what their politics actually are for the moment. Are you really okay with a company refusing to serve someone because of their politics? If a school was teaching creationism in science class and Airbnb were refusing to rent rooms to people going to the area to protest that would you be okay with it?
Ah. Yeah, I wasn't actually trying to quote the document so much as give a pithy statement to sum up how the document was being presented in the press. Now that you've pointed that out I can see how my intentions weren't clear.
My right to be alive is not a political issue.
It's a hazy area that will probably end up having to be settled in court.
Well...I haven't read the document but the part you quoted isn't really realistic. All organizations will have a common culture. It may not be reasonable to expect otherwise. The acceptable behavior, language, social values, etc. at Lehman Brothers is bound to be dramatically different than at Google. This is also true at academic institutions vs. private sector institutions. If someone doesn't agree with the culture, language, values of the institution they are at, I am not sure that 1.) complaining openly about it will be very persuasive (tilting windmills much?) or 2.) the author is being very mindful of their own place in the institution. Yelling "tribalism!" ignores the fact that it IS a tribe, that people are social creatures that require commonality to form bonds (which is conducive to productivity), and that throwing around pop psychology concepts is not really a diagnosis for any kind of institutional problem.
And is totally in the process here - even if only because our cities want to tax the properties as hotels instead of residences.
