How much of your home and hat collection are covered in tinfoil?
I learned a new term “conspiracy fact”. Putting the word theory after conspiracy is a misuse of the word (should be conspiracy hypothesis). Fact even goes farther. With these conspiracy facts, how do we know if it is a real fact or an alternative one? I’ll guess I’ll just have to assume alternative until evidence is presented.
The second article had some nonsense about Trump, Bannon and Shapiro representing average people. I almost laughed out loud to that one.
You slander the OP for being a tin hat conspiracy theorist, yet people in positions of power and influence like Klaus Schwab are openly telling the world their plans for the “great reset”. Because its out in the open, its probably no longer technically a conspiracy.
What do you think is factually incorrect in the articles to make you dismiss them?
They may not be representatives of the average person(that would be amusing). They aren’t advocating unrealistic and disingenuous massive revolutionary change.
Yes, they are.
Surely you aren’t suggesting that a billionaire whose career has often been fleecing average people isn’t representative of them?
“He speaks for the little guy” is one of the most insane things ever sold to people. Then again his supporters are largely buying Democratic cannibals are selling the blood of children or something so maybe not that crazy in comparison.
Cancel culture is already turning into the most overused term in the world. “Can you believe that company fired the person who was spouting off racist, homophobic, etc language?! Cancel culture has got to stop!” Someone try going into their job and saying half the shit people say online and report back on how it goes.
Ah, the eternal contrarian. Lol.
You sound like a conspiracy theorist, about conspiracy theories. How many people in America do you think actually believe that?
Why do you think anyone who isn’t a frontline spokesman representing a private company, or an individual acting as a representative of the government should have their freedom of speech curtailed, for saying something controversial, out of work hours, as long as they are not actually breaking the law?
I can see a case perhaps if they are saying it during work hours in the course of their job, in uniform etc.
Saying something racist, or homophobic may not be considered nice for polite company, but its is not a crime in most places(yet). When it becomes a crime, or is a defacto crime that punishes those out of the judicial system then you are living in a dystopian society.
As the saying goes, if you want to know who runs your society, look at who you can’t criticise.
Depends on what you look at. This makes it seem as if no small amount. Pinpointing the exact number of course would be impossible.
Why do you think places shouldn’t have the freedom to make decisions regarding their employees? I work in a company with a decent amount of diversity that I oversee most of the people out of our office. So if I have an employee that on their Facebook constantly puts pictures of themselves at KKK meetings, posts bring back slavery, etc you don’t think that effects what we do? You think black employees are going to want to work with that person? How about our black clients?
So if I own a small business in a Jewish neighborhood and everyone finds out that my newest waiter writes horrific things about Jews on Facebook all the time I shouldn’t have the freedom to do anything? Even if everyone decides to boycott my business because they won’t eat at a place that has people who hate them working there? I just need to go bankrupt because it’s not a crime to hate Jews and it’s after work hours?
You still don’t understand freedom of speech in America.
Interesting article. One in three Republicans (33%) say they believe the QAnon theory about a conspiracy among deep-state elites is “mostly true,” and another 23% say “some parts” are true.
I don’t know what the particular QAnon conspiracy theory is, but the deep state exists in every government bureaucracy, public service especially in democracies, no matter which side is the president. That’s no secret, and its not new.
Japan BRANDVOICE | Paid Program
Japan Using Digital Technology To Enhance Longevity In Society
Grads of Life BRANDVOICE | Paid Program
Long-Term Talent Cultivation: A Case Study From New Orleans
Civic Nation BRANDVOICE | Paid Program
Every Child Deserves To Be Seen, Safe, And Successful
QAnon supporters claim President Trump is defending the planet from a cabal of Satan-worshiping pedophiles (consisting mostly of Hollywood celebrities, liberal politicians and “deep-state” government officials) who are running a secret child sex-trafficking ring.
The motivations of QAnon are far fetched, I couldn’t see where in the article said what percentage believed in this cabal, what if its only 1%. Its hard to argue that there isn’t evidence of well known, influencial people, especially in Hollywood, being organised pedophiles. Epstein etc. No different from the churches, or the Boy Scouts. As for Trump being a defender against it, unlikely. More likely he had some awareness of it, and some people might even allege possible participation, due to association.
The FBI has identified QAnon conspiracy theorists as “extremists” who pose a potential domestic terror threat.
Everyone today is seen as a potential threat by the FBI, whether they are on the far left or the far right. America is a heavily divided society, not just in the political sense.
QAon’s might be dicks, but their views are no less crazy than extremists from BLM, or transgender rights, or other neo marxists organisations. No ones trying to ban them, that would be discriminatory. Like it or not even people that you think are nut jobs get an opinion and a vote in a democracy. Aren’t we all supposed to be tolerant of diversity? Isn’t diversity our greatest strength?
Well if the person isn’t breaking a law, by expressing a political viewpoint in non work hours, its none of the the employer’s business. If the expression is based upon a religious reason(and still not breaking the law), then the employer would be violating that person’s right to freedom of religion. There are usually competing rights, more so now than ever. Who wins? Probably no one you both have to lump it.
All an employer would need to say is, the views expressed by the employee do not in any way represent the company’s view, legally he has the right to do so, in his own time.
Don’t you have freedom of association in America? The KKK, do they even officially exist? Is there more than 10 members in the entire country? No one but fearmongers like the SPLC even care because they have no political power.
Your hypothetical whilst technically possible its so unlikely to occur it borders on the impossible.
Same again for issue for the small business in a Jewish neighborhood. A why would someone like you suggest even live or work in a Jewish neighborhood? What is he actually posting, that’s so horrific, a disagrement on narrative, or the extermination of the Jew’s?
I suspect even if you couldn’t legally fire an employee for expressing an opinion in their own time, the employer would come up with some kind of other reason why the person needed to be “let go”.
Somehow I don’t think you do either. Freedom of speech especially in America is all about someone’s right to express offensive or unpopular opinions. When someone sidesteps the constitutional law regarding free speech, and publicly defacto punishes the alleged perpetrator of a non crime they are spitting on American constitution.
Here’s another saying: if you want to know what someone believes, look at whom they quote.
Yeah. And to be clear it’s not that I think they are nut jobs. They are nut jobs. If you think Donald Trump is protecting us from satan worshipping pedophile cannibals you should be being treated for mental illness. Maybe that’s the issue we have in this country. It’s not about “cancel culture.” If you think North Korea brought ballots from Maine, if you think Sandy Hook was child actors to take guns, etc we should be doing the right thing and getting these people the mental health help they so clearly need.
I’m sure you disagree as a resident conspiracy fan but maybe that’s what should happen. It’s thinking so irrational it needs professional help. Clearly delusional thoughts.
Perhaps it’s not but it’s not exactly a new phenomenon. It’s the reality. What do you think places have done for years with this information? This isn’t new. The only difference is now people are telling on themselves and putting it out for their employers and customers to see. 25 years ago that teachers close friends may have known she hated teaching her black students and wished they would all go back to Africa. But she says that now online and everyone knows. And you don’t think consequences for that shouldn’t exist? I mean that’s fine if you do but consequences do exist. And they have for a LONG time. It’s not new. It’s just more prevalent because people can’t help but share their hate in front of the entire world. But employers don’t HAVE to do nothing.
What it seems like a lot of people who say cancel culture is a problem are really saying they long for the days when they could be huge asshole bigots and less people cared.
Again I don’t have time to educate you on everything in America. My hypothetical was that way to make a point. Clearly you missed it.
But it’s NOT a violation of free speech if that person has a consequence for that speech. And that’s the part you miss over and over and over again. You’re constantly saying what happened to free speech in situations where free speech isn’t an issue.
If I go in the office tomorrow and say horrific things to a coworker I still have freedom of speech and the constitution isn’t remotely being spit on. If I am fired for that same thing. That’s the part you fail to get. I’m not sure how things work everywhere but I am sure how they work in the US and you’re consistently bringing up free speech issues that aren’t free speech issues here.
Who exactly do you think I’m quoting?
I know who you are quoting (hint: it isn’t Voltaire).
[quote=“H_factor, post:13, topic:272591”]
Yeah. And to be clear it’s not that I think they are nut jobs. They are nut jobs.
No disagreement there. The problem is the are plenty of people, not in QAnon that also have batshit crazy ideas that hold insane views on many issues. They are equally in the left wing if not more concentrated there than on the extreme right. They have the backing of the media, academia, and now the Biden government. They institutionally back transgenderism in the military, and other areas . Its pathologically delusional to believe you are a female if you were born male. These people are even more delusional if they expect the average person to believe them. Do you really want someone who has lost touch with reality, to occupy a position of authority?
How about people that believe, like BLM that black people are hunted down in the streets, and are killed in epic proportions, even though the statistics say the exact opposite?
Back to the original issue of the article. I wouldn’t even know if QAnon has a position on the Great Reset, I don’t really care to be honest. As far as I know most of the people reacting to the Great Reset have nothing to do with QAnon or any other wacky conspiracy theories. All they are doing is reacting to to the stated plan of the people that are pushing for the Great Reset.
You really are drawing a long bow conflating the Great Reset with QAnon.
No I got your point, it was just too far fetched to realistically happen.
That’s debatable, and depends heavily on a case by case basis. What happens when there are competing constitutional rights eg a combination of freedom of speech, and freedom of religion vs state or federal laws. Constitution is supposed to trump the others in those cases.
My argument has nothing to do with that, in all instances it was about what an employee said or does on their own time, not at work. In your case the employer could well have justifiable grounds sacking said employee, due to lack of professionalism, allowing personal issues to invade the workspace. Nothing surprising there.
I don’t particularly care about either. And I didn’t bring up Q to conflate it with the great reset. I made a post to someone else you replied to independent of the latest conspiracy theory. I can’t keep up with them. Nor will I try. Illuminati, swamp, deep state, great reset, etc just different terms of the same shit people have been saying for years. I’m sure I should be terrified.
Not really. The court has been fairly clear on the issue for a while. It’s not as if we don’t have any questions about free speech stuff but for the most part what people continue to say are free speech issues simply aren’t in the slightest. If you post how much you love Hitler and wish the Holocaust had been more successful and your employer fires you feel free to sue. I just don’t think you will get far very often.
I don’t know what you’re trying to argue here. That’s for courts to decide. And they have been doing so for a long time even before the internet. And again they have been pretty clear. The overwhelming majority of things that people such as yourself constantly bring up as freedom of speech issues aren’t. At least not in the eyes of the court here. I’m not sure how it works where you live.
Simple solution: Don’t publicly post stuff you wouldn’t want your employer to know about you. Because it CAN effect how you are viewed at work and CAN put your job in jeopardy.
Personal issues are coming into the workspace based off what people do online. Again the simple solution is maybe don’t post bigoted stuff online in public places? I mean what we’re talking about is insanely easy to avoid. If you wouldn’t say it at work because it might get you fired just don’t say it online in front of the whole world perhaps? I mean it’s not like you can’t say horrific stuff on the internet. The internet is full of places for people to hate on everyone anonymously. All sorts of forums and channels exist for that. But people do it out in the open and then cry about the consequences.
I believe it used to be considered. But that’s not what the American Medical Association thinks. It’s not what the WHO thinks. It’s not what the American Psychiatric Association says. Those stances have changed in recent years. Being gay used to be considered a mental illness as well and of course it isn’t. Not trying to start the 50 millionth trans thread on here but this is not backed up by a lot of current leading organizations.
Well we just had a guy who said Mexico would pay for a wall for us, he would get everyone healthcare for cheaper than Obamacare, Coronavirus would simply vanish, and is lately loudly proclaiming he won an election in which he clearly lost. So I would say at least here we are quite used to someone who has lost touch with reality being in a position of authority.
Hell we have a person in congress who thinks Jewish space lasers caused wildfires. Pretty sure I can buy someone being transgender as far less delusional than that.
In general that’s a prudent approach to take, if you want to avoid trouble.
The problem I have with the left is their hypocrisy. They demand they can speak freely in the name of tolerance or equality or fairness, about whatever they want, and suffer no issues from doing the same thing that a conservative gets punished for. This kind of environment feeds on its self and becomes increasingly restrictive.
USA is the gold standard for citizen rights, and freedoms, in the history of mankind. No other country comes close. It astounds me how so many of you are happy to let others trample on them.
In Australia this kind of thing was put to the test a couple of years ago. In the national debate about whether to make gay marriage legal, a prominent rugby player, and christian made a comment on social media that gays were sinners and would go to hell if they didn’t repent.
His employer, Rugby Australia cancelled his contract. The main sponsor at the time was Qantas airlines, whose ceo is a gay activist, who prominently campaigned in favor of gay marriage. Now Qantas is a majority state owned public/ private corporation. Apparently he has the right as a representative of a company(majority owned by the public) to promote his personal political opinion, probably part assisted by company resources. He didn’t get sacked, no mention whatsoever that it was inappropriate for him to comment publically, either as a private citizen or as the head of a normally apolitical business/service. He probably exerted pressure on Rugby Australia as the main sponsor to get the footballer sacked.
Well there was outrage from both sides of the spectrum. The left was astounded someone would have homophobic views, let alone express them despite everyone in the country knowing that at least for 2000 years biblical christian belief has always been against homosexuality. They actually acted like it was a surprise Christians would have these views, or that they should be allowed to express these opinions in an open debate.
The middle, right, and Christians were outraged at interference of a persons right to free speech and free practice of expressing his religious beliefs.
The footballer threatened legal action, and a crowdfunding campaign was set up to help fund his case for wrongful dismissal, on the grounds of free speech and freedom of religion. The left couldn’t let him get away with having a different opinion, a job, or a legal defence for that matter. They put pressure on the crowdfunding campaign, who folded to the pressure and cancelled the campaign.
The legal case commenced and eventually Rugby Australia folded before judgement because they knew they had no legal power to sack the player for a perceived off field offence, and not pay out the remainder of the contract that was owed. For all their bluff and blather Rugby Australia lost the war, and a lot of money in legal fees and settlement. They got woke and went broke. I believe a little later Qantas stopped their sponsorship with Rugby Australia, leaving them in an even worse financial position despite RA bending over backwards to please them.
I imagine things would have gone the same way in the USA as your constitutional rights are much clearer than Australia’s.
Depends what you call recent years. From my perspective it has changed relatively recently, but I’m a little older than you. Gender dysphoria I still believe is regarded by psychiatric professionals as a disorder." According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition ( DSM - 5 ),for a person to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria , there must be a marked difference between the individual’s expressed/experienced gender and his or her assigned (natal) gender , and it must continue for at least 6 months."
I believe you are correct about homosexuality being depathologized. I’m fairly sure that was the case when I began studying undergraduate psychology in 1989. The change was still considered controversial by many practitioners. The reasons for the controversy was due to the political motivation for the change rather than clearly being scientific and factual. I seem to remember a documentary about the issue that discussed it more comprehensibly.
The ironic thing now, is that a psychological term like homophobia, the extreme, irrational fear of homosexuals, has been co opted to mean anyone who disapproves of or questions homosexual politics. Its a pathologization of once was considered the normal view of homosexuality. Now its disparaging, and meant to immediately dismiss someones legitimate opinion, without needing to refute it.
I don’t know if homophobia in the old sense ever existed, it might have but I don’t remember reading about any cases of someone not being able to live a regular life because of it. If it did occur it would be extremely uncommon. Other phobia’s like agoraphobia, or acrophobia, there are plenty of examples of them negatively effecting the sufferers quality of life, or ability to do actions normal people have no issue with.
Two wrongs don’t make a right, you just have a situation that both side are run by crazies. In the end reality catches up with everyone, if you disregard it. I’d rather less people than more have to suffer from the extreme consequences of being out of touch with reality.