Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

poochyena

Member
  • Content Count

    665
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Awards


This user doesn't have any awards

4 Followers

About poochyena

  • Title
    Member
  • Birthday 1995-10-21

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Alabama
  • Occupation
    self employed selling costume accessories.

System

  • CPU
    6600k @ 4.5
  • RAM
    8gb
  • GPU
    EVGA GTX 980
  • Storage
    480GB SSD
  • PSU
    650 watts gold
  • Mouse
    g700s
  • Operating System
    w10

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Single Status Update

See all updates by poochyena

  1. I have a question.

     

    Is it okay to fire people based on race? Is that legal? Because the democrats did exactly that in the last week or two, on a monday. They fired most of their white staffers, citing a "lack of diversity".

     

    How is that acceptable in any way shape or form, and how is it that the supposedly anti-fascist left have become fascists themselves?

    1. Show previous comments  1 more
    2. Trik'Stari

      Trik'Stari

      But according to leftist dogma and the letter of the law as it currently stands, firing someone for being a certain race is illegal, and in fact racist.

       

      To be fair, I am actually in agreement with that doctrine. I do however think you should be able to hire and fire people based on their political leanings. For example, I wouldn't hire leftists if I owned a business. For fear that they would go out of their way to make my company appear cruel and greedy, in an effort to make capitalism look bad.

       

      And I don't know if anyone answered your question in the earlier thread, but there is a legally defined difference between a publisher and a platform.

       

      A publisher can pick and choose (see: editorialize) what is shown to the public via their infrastructure, a platform does not.

       

      Legally speaking, Facebook, Youtube, Google, and Twitter, are behaving as publishers more so than platforms. Because they deliberately downplay or outright silence content coming from sources of a specific political ideology.

       

      The problem, is that under the DMCA (either that or the 1996 Telecommunications act, I can't remember which), these "platforms" are granted immunity from slander or libel lawsuits, provided that they remain neutral, in the same way a telephone company is not liable for anything you do or say on their infrastructure. There are some differences, I agree, but there is still a legally defined difference between a publisher and a platform.

    3. Nowak

      Nowak

      Sounds more like liberals thinking they're doing "the right thing" more than it does leftists to me tbh

    4. poochyena

      poochyena

      > But according to leftist dogma and the letter of the law as it currently stands, firing someone for being a certain race is illegal, and in fact racist.
      It is against the law and racist. You just simply asked if I thought it was "ok" or not. I don't think they should, just that they should be allowed to.

      Also, why would anyone care what "leftist dogma" thinks? That phrase doesn't even really mean anything.

       

      > A publisher can pick and choose (see: editorialize) what is shown to the public via their infrastructure, a platform does not.
      In that case, then what is an example of a platform?

×