**** Elections thread *****

[Jack Sawyer]

He was not, force is probably the wrong word. I was more referring to you call to "let the man speak". I'm just asking...why should they?

Because they already had their agreements. However, much like in the PewDiePie story from a few days ago, or rather exactly like the PewDiePie’s story, reporters went and found 2 year old footage of Milo saying things, and then went to his sponsors and business partners for comment. These people knew about these things I imagine prior to this, but then they presented him as being arguably even more toxic than he already is. The people he ad engagements with, his business parters et.al. had no recourse but to drop him.


SJW tactics are getting more and more out of hand.


A while back, some dude named Thunderf00t on youtube called out a few feminists. She invented some dirt on him, doxed him to find out his real name and who he was, and then confronted his employers with the invented stuff on him.


It’s getting out of control. Whatever you say and people do not agree with you, they will go out of their way to attack your income. It’s pathetic, and now it seems to happen on a larger scale as whole organizations go after individuals.

[MadMojoMonkey]

It’s getting out of control. Whatever you say and people do not agree with you, they will go out of their way to attack your income. It’s pathetic, and now it seems to happen on a larger scale as whole organizations go after individuals.

To me, the practice of reporting on someone's private life to their employer is ridiculous, as most gossip is.

The real fault is in the employer treating petty revenge behavior as though it's ethical.

While the tattle-tale is out of line, the employer should just laugh at them and ask what it has to do with their employee's ability to do their job when they are ON the clock.

Firing someone for something they did which is no part of their ability or record of performing their job is a crime against freedom.

***
Also, the broad generalization to "people who disagree with you will go out of their way to attack..." is too far.
There are some bad actors, but I disagree with basically everything everyone does on an individual level, and I've never attacked anyone over it...
Well, not since I was an angsty teenager, anyway.


The hyperbolic rhetoric coming from all sides in this thread is ... SMH.
You guys really are too smart to make these broad extrapolations from such tiny data sets.

[Jack Sawyer]

Also, the broad generalization to "people who disagree with you will go out of their way to attack..." is too far.
There are some bad actors, but I disagree with basically everything everyone does on an individual level, and I've never attacked anyone over it...
Well, not since I was an angsty teenager, anyway.




The hyperbolic rhetoric coming from all sides in this thread is ... SMH.
You guys really are too smart to make these broad extrapolations from such tiny data sets.

It is saddening, but this is the exact tactic I keep seeing that is employed the moment prominent (or not even so prominent) people are in disagreement with one another. Dig up old dirt, take it as much out of context as possible, then publicly go to the employers (and or any other authority in the vicinity) of the opponent. This is the other kind of gag tactic, the attack the income strategy.


I can make a youtube playlist of times in which it has happened, news stories in general. It’s particularly popular with femenists. Do you remember the Hugh Mungus incident?


It’s low.