If your values don't match the establisment, you cant work, unless we want you too!
Well a few weeks ago we saw how the gay community can force one who disagrees with their values to have to work for them, and today we see how the gay community can also keep you from being able to work with the villification of Mr. Robertson from A&E's Duck Dynasty tv show.
Why are Americans being held hostage by the tyranny of the few?
Why are Americans being held hostage by the tyranny of the few?
From the Wikipedia entry:
"According to George Orwell, "The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of IngSoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meaning and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meaning whatever."[2] The idea that language influences worldview is linguistic relativity.
For example, the word "free" still existed in Newspeak but could only be used in terms of something not being possessed as in, "the dog is free from lice" or, "this field is free from weeds." It could not be used in terms of being able to do as one pleases, as in "free choice" or "free will" since these concepts no longer existed. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum. Any redundancies in the English language were removed.[2]
As Orwell further states, "By 2050—earlier, probably—all real knowledge of Oldspeak will have disappeared. The whole literature of the past will have been destroyed. Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Byron—they'll exist only in Newspeak versions, not merely changed into something different, but actually contradictory of what they used to be. Even the literature of the Party will change. Even the slogans will change. How could you have a slogan like "freedom is slavery" when the concept of freedom has been abolished? The whole climate of thought will be different. In fact there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconsciousness."[1]
Some examples of Newspeak from the novel include crimethink, doublethink, and Ingsoc. They mean, respectively, "thought-crime," "accepting as correct two mutually contradictory beliefs" and "English socialism" (the official political philosophy of the Party). The word Newspeak itself also comes from the language."
Note that instead of "thought crime" we have "hate speech" and "hate crime".
---
That's because hating is rightfully deplorable, while thinking is not. ;)
The A&E network is a privately owned business entity, and therefore the owners are perfectly within their right to censor anyone on their network they so choose.
in this case A and E have an interest in preserving a reputation that includes not offending a portion of their viewership. Phil is enjoying a very public life due to his employment. While he works for the network his contract likely States that he must be careful in public with regards to what he says because his public persona is somewhat a reflection on the network. I have little doubt he knew better. I respect the right of his private opinion, but not the use of a bully pulpit to push an agenda.
First Principle: Always be tolerant and accepting of people who are different because of their genetics, biology, and/or physical conditions.
Second Principle: Always be tolerant and accepting of people who are different because of their opinions and beliefs, except in cases where their opinions and beliefs violate the first principle.
There's a saying that a tolerant society can tolerate everything except intolerance. And you know what? That's exactly how it should be.
https://scontent-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-...
Why should I tolerate communists? Why should I tolerate fascists? Why should I tolerate socialists? Why should I tolerate totalitarianism?
Your principles, rather dictates don't address those things. Your tolerance principle seeks to suggest that everything is equal, which is to deny one their ability to judge and value.
Should we tolerate the values of NAMBLA?
I do not have to be accepting of any group limited to your criteria. That is not rational or logical. My tolerance levels change depending on each individual.
Everyone has certain inalienable rights and freedoms (and responsibilities); in most cases, to be compensated for work (eg employment) one has to modify or voluntarily give up some of thse rights or freedoms; if one does not, they don't get paid.
If he DIDN'T receive the consequence to derelection of his duties under said agreement, he would be a (I believe the technical term is) Moocher. Getting something of value for failure to supply equal value.
On one hand - he's now free to spout off his allegedly bigoted viewpoints to whoever listens; on the other, doing such will likely cost him his future financial resource from A&E (and likely anyopne else expecting him to uphold a compensation-for-performance (eg employment)
contract). I hope it was worth it; you know, perhaps to him, maybe it was.
The rationalizations you come up with are amazing.