Discussion about hot topics trending today

[garhkal]

The last one I heard about was a guy who had been trashtalking 343 Industries in his past internet history. He'd just landed a job at the company, however, though as you can imagine his hiring was revoked when they found out about that little secret.

So let me get this straight.. He had spent a while bad mouthing the industry online, and now wanted to get work with them?? What changed?

[jelgate]

And once again, my question, why do you complain about it?

That's like asking why do birds fly or fish swim. Whining is in Annoyed's nature

[Annoyed]

So let me get this straight.. He had spent a while bad mouthing the industry online, and now wanted to get work with them?? What changed?

My guess would be they offered him a better job than the one he had.

[Annoyed]

And once again, my question, why do you complain about it?

This is a discussion board for issues of the day, and this topic certainly is in the forefront of the national discussion as of late. I'm just pointing out what is a huge logical flaw in the protesting players and their supporters thinking; that they have the right to express personal viewpoints while representing their employer(s). They don't, unless the employer is ok with it.

[Gatefan1976]

Point taken.

A company has policies which an employee upon hiring has to read and sign, acknowledging they agree to the terms.
Plenty of cases known where new hires and employees have been fired for breaking the company policy rules. When severe enough to warrant such a sacking.

Yep.

So, if the baker's company policy is that he cannot service couples which his religion tells him are living in some sort of sin or does not agree with, then he can refuse all he like in my opinion. If he does not have it in writing, he should keep his discrimination out of the workplace and do his job as baker. I think that would be the simplest way of solving this issue -- write it down in the or a company policy -- serving only good christian couples (who did not have sexual intercourse before the marriage).

I foresee lots of clauses in his policy.

If he doesn't like a 5-star rating for service, who are we to stop him (from going bankrupt at some point).

The core problem of this is -discrimination-
Did you notice in the recent case of employers not being forced to cover birth control that it is not just ok to do it because of "deeply held religious beliefs", but -also- deeply held moral beliefs? On the surface, you could say that is a "win" for non religious morals -BUT- discrimination is often a deeply held moral belief as well.

Can you be a little more specific, I don't quite follow what you mean (I think).

Oh wait... no, I do get it... It goes back to company policy where an employee needs to step in line with the regulations and policies set forth by the company they work for, while at the same time an employee cannot express or represent personal choice or opinions when they clash with that policy -- hence why company policies are usually as broad as possible within the rules of the land. If the rules of the land dictate that one cannot discriminate against straights, a company cannot have a policy rule stating it's okay to discriminate against straights.

That what you mean?

Not quite.
Remember, the NFL flag thing has -nothing- to do with what people are equating it to now, it is about the inordinate violence towards blacks by police. The flag and the Anthem do -not- represent "patriotism" which is the position of the "general" right, they represent the COUNTRY, ALL of the country, and by taking a knee, the idea is that some part of the -country- is damaged or broken and to bring attention to it.
My more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.

Although, not entirely sure where my double standard comes into play...

Non personal you FH, more like "Yes, that is the double standard"

Neither are NFL teams.

But players are members of a union... weird.

Ahh, yes they are.

[Womble]

My more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.

Excuse me, but the NFL players are the ones distorting their own message. Their stunts are not against symbols of police brutality, they are against symbols of the country, as you helpfully observed. Aren't there other ways to make the same point that would be more precisely targeted and would not be so widely misinterpreted as a broadside against American state's existence?

[aretood2]

Excuse me, but the NFL players are the ones distorting their own message. Their stunts are not against symbols of police brutality, they are against symbols of the country, as you helpfully observed. Aren't there other ways to make the same point that would be more precisely targeted and would not be so widely misinterpreted as a broadside against American state's existence?

If fake football was a widespread international sport, I wonder how it would look like between a friendly with the USA and some other country...with the US team kneeling to its own national anthem.

[Gatefan1976]

Excuse me, but the NFL players are the ones distorting their own message. Their stunts are not against symbols of police brutality, they are against symbols of the country, as you helpfully observed.

Umm............. Who do the police -work- for?
The State/The people
In other words, the -country-
Seems like a perfectly reasonable target to me.

Aren't there other ways to make the same point that would be more precisely targeted and would not be so widely misinterpreted as a broadside against American state's existence?

What would you suggest?
As for it being "widely misinterpreted", I think you will find that the divide falls pretty squarely along party lines, so is it really the "American state's existence" being targeted?

[Gatefan1976]

If fake football was a widespread international sport, I wonder how it would look like between a friendly with the USA and some other country...with the US team kneeling to its own national anthem.

I'm more curious to know if the spectators at home watching on the idiot box stand for the Anthem as well, or at least put their beer and nacho's down..............

[Gatefan1976]

Oh, and the Green beret who wrote the initial letter to Kaepernick has written a follow up, worth reading:
http://www.espn.com.au/nfl/story/_/i...states-america

[Womble]

My more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.

Excuse me, but the NFL players are the ones distorting their own message. Their stunts are not against symbols of police brutality, they are against symbols of the country, as you helpfully observed. Aren't there other ways to make the same point that would be more precisely targeted and would not be so widely misinterpreted as a broadside against American state's existence?

[Gatefan1976]

Say it one more time, it makes it true............

[Womble]

Umm............. Who do the police -work- for?
The State/The people
In other words, the -country-
Seems like a perfectly reasonable target to me.

So do firemen.

What would you suggest?

Anything that is specifically targeted against police brutality or racism. Can't be hard to find.

As for it being "widely misinterpreted", I think you will find that the divide falls pretty squarely along party lines, so is it really the "American state's existence" being targeted?

That is completely false. USA national anthem protests have a very clear context- they have been a form of "black power" salute since the 1960-s when it was used in varying forms during Olympics games and other sports events. Look up Mahmoud Abdul Raouf. Or 1968 Olympic games.

[Annoyed]

Remember, the NFL flag thing has -nothing- to do with what people are equating it to now, it is about the inordinate violence towards blacks by police. The flag and the Anthem do -not- represent "patriotism" which is the position of the "general" right, they represent the COUNTRY, ALL of the country, and by taking a knee, the idea is that some part of the -country- is damaged or broken and to bring attention to it.
My more specific point was NFL players are allowed to wear pink cleats for Breast cancer awareness because that's an acceptable social issue for the NFL to represent, the killing of black people by cops however, now is not -because- of this distortion of the message.

It doesn't matter a bit WHAT the players are protesting. The issue is that they do not have the right to protest for or against anything while "on the clock", wearing the uniforms provided by their employers, on the stage that their employer provides to present its product unless their employers agree to let them do so or support their efforts. If the NFL or by extension, the individual team that writes them their paycheck decides to either allow them to do so or actively supports them doing so, fine, then they have the right to do whatever their employer grants them the right to do while they're "on the clock". If their employer doesn't want them to do so, they can't. They are still perfectly within their rights to go stand on a streetcorner and protest to their hearts content, to whomever they can get to listen to them.

The NFL owners will be discussing this at their fall meeting this upcoming week, and they will make some sort of decision on the matter. I fully expect them to put a stop to it as it is beginning to negatively affect the one thing every business has as its first priority, their profits.

If I'm wrong, and the NFL or the owners of any specific team choose to allow it, or outright support it, then the protests will continue and it won't bother me a bit, as I rarely even watch football.

[Gatefan1976]

So do firemen.

So what?
Honestly, I am surprised you did not go for the low hanging fruit of troops.
Kaepernick made his "target" quite clear however.

Anything that is specifically targeted against police brutality or racism. Can't be hard to find.

Well, you failed to find one, so...........?

That is completely false. USA national anthem protests have a very clear context- they have been a form of "black power" salute since the 1960-s when it was used in varying forms during Olympics games and other sports events. Look up Mahmoud Abdul Raouf. Or 1968 Olympic games.

What a load of bull****.
Raouf made it clear it was his Islamist beliefs that caused his sitting.
The 1968 Games?
If you think that helps your argument, I don't know what you are reading as ALL THREE athletes involves made it quite clear that they were representing the black lives, African or Aboriginal that had been affected by "white rulership"
You want to create a correlation-causation argument.
Fine.
It's only because of your book that Negro's were considered lesser beings to be enslaved by whites
It's only because of your book that Women were considered lesser beings to be enslaved by men
Therefore, you, as an adherent of your book, are a racist misogynist.
Isn't this fun??