How much is your free expression worth?

[CO. Hoosier]

For the recently fired president of Levis, freedom of expression is worth more than one million dollars. She poignantly describes all of what is wrong with our views on free expression. Government, companies, institutions , sports, high tech, education and more are all in lockstep with Levis. No society can ever succeed or survive with suppressed speech and ideas.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Yesterday I Was Levi’s Brand President. I Quit So I Could Be Free.

I turned down $1 million severance in exchange for my voice.

bariweiss.substack.com

 

[Lucy01]

I think mine is worth about $10 a month 😁

 

[Marvin the Martian]

For the recently fired president of Levis, freedom of expression is worth more than one million dollars. She poignantly describes all of what is wrong with our views on free expression. Government, companies, institutions , sports, high tech, education and more are all in lockstep with Levis. No society can ever succeed or survive with suppressed speech and ideas.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Yesterday I Was Levi’s Brand President. I Quit So I Could Be Free.

I turned down $1 million severance in exchange for my voice.

bariweiss.substack.com

I do not disagree, but haven't we long decided corps can fire people for just about any reason?

Going back to the woman that flipped off Trump, she was fired. I don't condone giving the president the bird, but it is clearly protected speech. But her employer also has the right to employ whomever they want. How do those competing rights get settled? I have no problem siding with the living, breathing, human. But that hasn't been generally accepted by conservatives over the years.

The book I read on randomness said corporate executives flat out have fewer rights than other Americans. A corporate officer in a bar fight will get fired, almost no other employee would be fired.

If we want to change at will employment it is fine to me but I suspect that is not going to have much support. But it is probably another area where Europe is more modern than the US.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I do not disagree, but haven't we long decided corps can fire people for just about any reason?

Going back to the woman that flipped off Trump, she was fired. I don't condone giving the president the bird, but it is clearly protected speech. But her employer also has the right to employ whomever they want. How do those competing rights get settled? I have no problem siding with the living, breathing, human. But that hasn't been generally accepted by conservatives over the years.

The book I read on randomness said corporate executives flat out have fewer rights than other Americans. A corporate officer in a bar fight will get fired, almost no other employee would be fired.

If we want to change at will employment it is fine to me but I suspect that is not going to have much support. But it is probably another area where Europe is more modern than the US.

I don’t think the point is about employment at will. It isn’t about giving Trump the finger. It’s not even about bringing shame on a business by employee conduct. It’s about a consistent effort by the largest and most influential institutions in this country restricting expression in a common and consistent fashion. It’s not good and the fallout won’t be good.

If you or anyone can defend Levis here I’m all ears. And I don’t think commenting about employment at will is relevant. It’s about how the will is exercised.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

I don’t think the point is about employment at will. It isn’t about giving Trump the finger. It’s not even about bringing shame on a business by employee conduct. It’s about a consistent effort by the largest and most influential institutions in this country restricting expression in a common and consistent fashion. It’s not good and the fallout won’t be good.

If you or anyone can defend Levis here I’m all ears. And I don’t think commenting about employment at will is relevant. It’s about how the will is exercised.

I have no interest in defending Levi except that I have been told corps can fire anyone for any reason. If the Corp feels someone's views are bad for their image, they can do it. I have no problem changing that law, that isn't the law in Europe.

I suggested it is competing rights, Does Levi have a right to hire/fire for any reason? Do you disagree with that? I wish they would not, but as the law is, is this not their right?

 

[mcmurtry66]

I have no interest in defending Levi except that I have been told corps can fire anyone for any reason. If the Corp feels someone's views are bad for their image, they can do it. I have no problem changing that law, that isn't the law in Europe.

I suggested it is competing rights, Does Levi have a right to hire/fire for any reason? Do you disagree with that? I wish they would not, but as the law is, is this not their right?

Marv I suspect the lion's share of executive positions have employment contracts

 

[Marvin the Martian]

Marv I suspect the lion's share of executive positions have employment contracts

True, but I still believe that book, that corp executives are held to a higher standard. It makes sense in a way, you want big bucks you can't be a controversy.

And of course she was offered money, I expect much like a coach buyout that is in the contract.

I think people should have a right to speak out on their own so long as they make it clear it is their personal opinion. But in our current legal framework that is not the law.

Out of college a friend went to work for Perot just before he sold. Perot had a rule, an arrest for DUI meant you would be fired. Not a conviction, an arrest. I always thought that was crazy for much the same reason.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I have no interest in defending Levi except that I have been told corps can fire anyone for any reason. If the Corp feels someone's views are bad for their image, they can do it. I have no problem changing that law, that isn't the law in Europe.

I suggested it is competing rights, Does Levi have a right to hire/fire for any reason? Do you disagree with that? I wish they would not, but as the law is, is this not their right?

Of course it’s their right to fire her. But that isn’t the point. And while Levis is the subject of the piece, the problem she so eloquently describes cuts across many businesses and institutions. I can’t think of any reason why this is a good thing, yet we have it and it’s getting worse. What’s going on?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Of course it’s their right to fire her. But that isn’t the point. And while Levis is the subject of the piece, the problem she so eloquently describes cuts across many businesses and institutions. I can’t think of any reason why this is a good thing, yet we have it and it’s getting worse. What’s going on?

I'm still trying to figure out what she "eloquently describes." She felt like her political opinions damaged her standing at work. Okay. That happens literally all the time across the entire nation. She felt attacked for saying that shutting down schools was bad for kids. Huh? I heard throughout the pandemic on NP-effing-R that shutting down schools was bad for kids. That's not exactly a radical opinion.

I'm guessing she turned down the severance because what she's about to do is worth a lot more than $1 million.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm still trying to figure out what she "eloquently describes."

Agreed.

She felt like her political opinions damaged her standing at work. Okay. That happens literally all the time across the entire nation. She felt attacked for saying that shutting down schools was bad for kids. Huh? I heard throughout the pandemic on NP-effing-R that shutting down schools was bad for kids. That's not exactly a radical opinion.

Levis has picked up its pitchfork and has become part of the anti-free expression mob. This isn’t about her. It’s not even about Levi's. It’s about the single purpose U S speech mob.

 

[DrHoops]

Agreed.


Levis has picked up its pitchfork and has become part of the anti-free expression mob. This isn’t about her. It’s not even about Levi's. It’s about the single purpose U S speech mob.

Hyperbole much?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Hyperbole much?

Did you read the link?

 

[TommyCracker]

Freedom of speech is simply protection from being persecuted by government for your speech.

Capitalism doesn't guarantee freedom of speech. It doesn't care about freedom of speech, it cares about brand.

Jimmy the Greek wasn't jailed for stating his views on why black athletes were in general 'more athletic' than white athletes....but he hurt CBS's brand and they fired him for it.

Same as Joe Rogan isn't going to be jailed or punished from the government for how he described going to see the planet of the apes movie in a predominantly black neighborhood...but capitalism might (it hasn't yet) bring down the hammer.

His speech is protected...his brand is not.

Free speech doesn't protect you from being employed...and that's the beauty of capitalism.

When a market closes, you have the ability to open another market or go out on your own.

What's funny is that a lot of Republicans are getting branded, maybe for the first time in their lives. They are feeling the pressure of not only a social expectation but they're finding out capitalism isn't as supportive as it used to be.

Which is where this rising victim cry is coming from but make no mistake, this isn't any kind of attack on freedom of speech, it's just business as usual.

Lastly, under your definition, we've never had freedom of speech. Different views have always been suppressed by those in power. Jesus H start with the church.

 

[TommyCracker]

For the recently fired president of Levis, freedom of expression is worth more than one million dollars. She poignantly describes all of what is wrong with our views on free expression. Government, companies, institutions , sports, high tech, education and more are all in lockstep with Levis. No society can ever succeed or survive with suppressed speech and ideas.

READ THE WHOLE THING.

Yesterday I Was Levi’s Brand President. I Quit So I Could Be Free.

I turned down $1 million severance in exchange for my voice.

bariweiss.substack.com

And here is where and why she was pushed out.....
-------
The response this time was different. “We don’t weigh in on hyper-local issues like this,” I was told. “There’s also a lot of potential negatives if we speak up strongly, starting with the numerous execs who have kids in private schools in the city.”

I refused to stop talking.
---------

So she felt her 'cause' was more important than her company because her 'cause' was causing the company grief, and as a prominent face of the company, those need to be aligned or at a min, she needs to ensure it doesn't cause the company grief.

She keep going, and got louder. Actually moved to Denver loudly to support her political opinions.

Good for her, but she was a pain in the ass for the company.

Obviously as Marvin pointed out she's creating a market for herself off guys like you because she politically lines up with you, so you dig her and good for you.

That's the beauty of capitalism.

If you're not getting the point here, simply re-read the story but this time give her extremely offensive beliefs. If she firmly believed that the Aryan race is the master race and Hitler would be proven right, that aids was sent by God to kill all gays and that there are way to many jews in the country....well that speech is protected, but it's not protected from capitalism.

 

[iuwclurker]

Seems to me none of you are getting her point. She wasn’t taking a political stance. She wasn’t doing anything radical. She didn’t move to Denver so she could express her voice louder, she moved there so her kids could be in school because in California they couldn’t be. As she says, she was simply advocating for children. In essence, she’s a humanitarian. She became blackballed because ignorant idiots couldn’t divorce themselves from their own politics and listen to what she was actually saying. In other words they couldn’t see their own inhumanity (toward children) because of their political dogma. And Levi’s pushed her out because those same ignorant idiots buy their pants.

And finally, she’s not doing any of this, including turning down the $1 million, because she has an agenda to have conservatives hire her. If you think this, then you likewise are unable to divorce your political dogma from her humanitarian viewpoint.

Levi’s pushed an extremely valuable and able top executives out the door. Other companies will clamor and pay huge dollars for her services.

thanks for posting, COH. Great read.

 

[TommyCracker]

Seems to me none of you are getting her point. She wasn’t taking a political stance. She wasn’t doing anything radical. She didn’t move to Denver so she could express her voice louder, she moved there so her kids could be in school because in California they couldn’t be. As she says, she was simply advocating for children. In essence, she’s a humanitarian. She became blackballed because ignorant idiots couldn’t divorce themselves from their own politics and listen to what she was actually saying. In other words they couldn’t see their own inhumanity (toward children) because of their political dogma. And Levi’s pushed her out because those same ignorant idiots buy their pants.

And finally, she’s not doing any of this, including turning down the $1 million, because she has an agenda to have conservatives hire her. If you think this, then you likewise are unable to divorce your political dogma from her humanitarian viewpoint.

Levi’s pushed an extremely valuable and able top executives out the door. Other companies will clamor and pay huge dollars for her services.

thanks for posting, COH. Great read.

The company told her repeatedly to STFU in the public domain, she chose not to.

There are consequences for making an unpopular stand but it was her choice to make.

She's not in jail. She's not being silenced. She's just now looking for work.

It would be no different than if I was a high ranking officer for Harley Davidson but was very vocal publicly about the dangers that the antivaxxers, antimaskers and Covid deniers were to the world. So much that I get labeled a crazy lib in the public domain.

The company then asks me to shut the **** up because I'm making those around me uncomfortable and offending our clients who are majority antivax and antimask.

I keep doing it because I believe in the importance of my cause.

To no one's surprise I get asked to leave.

That's all this is.

You may not think she's being offensive but each company has their own view on it and when a person has been warned repeatedly....that person makes the choice.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Agreed.


Levis has picked up its pitchfork and has become part of the anti-free expression mob. This isn’t about her. It’s not even about Levi's. It’s about the single purpose U S speech mob.

I'm pretty sure it was about her and Levi's.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Freedom of speech is simply protection from being persecuted by government for your speech.

No. Freedom of sppech is an inalienable right. We have prohibited government t from restricting it. But the concept is much bigger than government.

Capitalism doesn't guarantee freedom of speech. It doesn't care about freedom of speech, it cares about brand

Capitalism can’t exist if we also don’t recognize and protect freedom of speech.

Jimmy the Greek wasn't jailed for stating his views on why black athletes were in general 'more athletic' than white athletes....but he hurt CBS's brand and they fired him for it.

Yep. Nuance isn’t your strong point.

Same as Joe Rogan isn't going to be jailed or punished from the government for how he described going to see the planet of the apes movie in a predominantly black neighborhood...but capitalism might (it hasn't yet) bring down the hammer.

if you think every decision a corporation makes is a result if capitalism, you’d be wrong, but you would be liberal.

Free speech doesn't protect you from being employed...and that's the beauty of capitalism

?

What's funny is that a lot of Republicans are getting branded, maybe for the first time in their lives. They are feeling the pressure of not only a social expectation but they're finding out capitalism isn't as supportive as it used to be.

Jennifer Sey is no Republican. Did you read the link? You framing free speech as a Republican thing tells me you don’t understand freedom of speech. Believing a Democrat and Republican should have different views on free speech is one reason why we are so f*cked up as a country.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I'm pretty sure it was about her and Levi's.

You are playing small ball on a little league diamond.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Seems to me none of you are getting her point. She wasn’t taking a political stance. She wasn’t doing anything radical. She didn’t move to Denver so she could express her voice louder, she moved there so her kids could be in school because in California they couldn’t be. As she says, she was simply advocating for children. In essence, she’s a humanitarian. She became blackballed because ignorant idiots couldn’t divorce themselves from their own politics and listen to what she was actually saying. In other words they couldn’t see their own inhumanity (toward children) because of their political dogma. And Levi’s pushed her out because those same ignorant idiots buy their pants.

And finally, she’s not doing any of this, including turning down the $1 million, because she has an agenda to have conservatives hire her. If you think this, then you likewise are unable to divorce your political dogma from her humanitarian viewpoint.

Levi’s pushed an extremely valuable and able top executives out the door. Other companies will clamor and pay huge dollars for her services.

thanks for posting, COH. Great read.

“ignoraignorant idiots couldn’t divorce themselves from their own politics and listen to what she was actually saying.”

Great line, the same as the responses here.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

each company has their own view on it

If you believe that, you will never understand the point. This is not about the provincial interests of each company or institution. The mob, egged on by special political interests, is controlling expression in the same way across many companies, institutions, and professions. This has got to stop. And it won’t until organizations take a risk. Levis may think they are serving their economic interests now, but it has no way of knowing what is the next item on the mob’s agenda.

Here is how Sey said it. She is not wrong:

But the corporation doesn’t believe in that now. It’s trapped trying to please the mob—and silencing any dissent within the organization. In this it is like so many other American companies: held hostage by intolerant ideologues who do not believe in genuine inclusion or diversity.​

 

[IUJIM]

The company told her repeatedly to STFU in the public domain, she chose not to.

There are consequences for making an unpopular stand but it was her choice to make.

She's not in jail. She's not being silenced. She's just now looking for work.

It would be no different than if I was a high ranking officer for Harley Davidson but was very vocal publicly about the dangers that the antivaxxers, antimaskers and Covid deniers were to the world. So much that I get labeled a crazy lib in the public domain.

The company then asks me to shut the **** up because I'm making those around me uncomfortable and offending our clients who are majority antivax and antimask.

I keep doing it because I believe in the importance of my cause.

To no one's surprise I get asked to leave.

That's all this is.

You may not think she's being offensive but each company has their own view on it and when a person has been warned repeatedly....that person makes the choice.

So you were perfectly ok with what happened with Colin Kaepernick, at least the narrative that the NFL , and specifically the owners, denied CK of the opportunity to continue playing in the NFL, because of his actions and words.

 

[larsIU]

No. Freedom of sppech is an inalienable right. We have prohibited government t from restricting it. But the concept is much bigger than government.

Says the Founders. The law in most places in the US is still at will employment.

Capitalism can’t exist if we also don’t recognize and protect freedom of speech.

I don't understand this. Capitalism (even in much more extreme forms) existed just fine with very little at work protection of free speech. Tell me how the unionists and communists fared at a Ford factory in the 20's and 30's. I bet they could say what the wanted and freely distribute their pamphlets with no repercussions. They'd be lucky if all they got was fired.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Says the Founders. The law in most places in the US is still at will employment.


I don't understand this. Capitalism (even in much more extreme forms) existed just fine with very little at work protection of free speech. Tell me how the unionists and communists fared at a Ford factory in the 20's and 30's. I bet they could say what the wanted and freely distribute their pamphlets with no repercussions. They'd be lucky if all they got was fired.

Capitalism requires things like free personal choice, free voluntary exchange, and protection of private interests. Take away free speech and expression and those things go away.

 

[larsIU]

Capitalism requires things like free personal choice, free voluntary exchange, and protection of private interests. Take away free speech and expression and those things go away.

Nobody took away her free speech or free expression. Hell, she wrote a memoir at 38 (NTTAWWTOC).

She was also hard working enough to put herself in a position to freely exercise her free speech rights w/o financial consequence (at least not much, she turned down $1 million). Her views didn't align wiht her company's brand. You don't have to like that company or how they handled it, but unless we're going to severely restrict how companies handle discipline and termination within their private organizations, there's much you can do except what you've done here. So, meh.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Nobody took away her free speech or free expression. Hell, she wrote a memoir at 38 (NTTAWWTOC).

She was also hard working enough to put herself in a position to freely exercise her free speech rights w/o financial consequence (at least not much, she turned down $1 million). Her views didn't align wiht her company's brand. You don't have to like that company or how they handled it, but unless we're going to severely restrict how companies handle discipline and termination within their private organizations, there's much you can do except what you've done here. So, meh.

Yep. She is an unusual and capable person. She’ll be fine. But this isn’t about Sey or Levis.

 

[hoot1]

Spent several years as a middle management level employee at two major corporations before venturing out on my own.

While working for major corporations i learned that there were two free speech levels of discussing corporate policies and leadership. The informal and formal.

The informal consisted of barroom chatter in small groups after work. The formal were meetings organized by corporate leaders. During informal meetings we aired our honest feelings (free speech) about working for the corporation. In formal meetings we told the higher ups what they wanted to hear.

An interesting ploy would be a corporate leader who in an informal setting (usually involving a few drinks) asked about your feelings toward a person or policies. In these situations, I would pretend to be openly honest, but keep what I really thought to myself.

The only time you shared your honest feelings (free speech) about the corporation would be during your exit interview, or upon risking having to face an exit interview.

 

[TommyCracker]

No. Freedom of sppech is an inalienable right. We have prohibited government t from restricting it. But the concept is much bigger than government.


Capitalism can’t exist if we also don’t recognize and protect freedom of speech.


Yep. Nuance isn’t your strong point.


if you think every decision a corporation makes is a result if capitalism, you’d be wrong, but you would be liberal.


?

Jennifer Sey is no Republican. Did you read the link? You framing free speech as a Republican thing tells me you don’t understand freedom of speech. Believing a Democrat and Republican should have different views on free speech is one reason why we are so f*cked up as a country.

Oh boy.

Look there are no first amendment rights in the private sector, it only exists in the public sector. You seem to be conflating the two even though you know better.

That alone sinks your battleship in this instance.

The simplified moral of the story is in general everyone is a brand manager of themselves. Every company also has a brand. If you help the company's brand (externally and/or internally) you are rewarded. If you hurt the company's brand (externally and/or internally) you struggle finding success with that entity.

Until the public sector creates a law protecting free speech in the private sector (like they did with the equal opportunity act)....that's the way it is.

Before you call me a dumb lib that doesn't know anything, all I've done is work for fortune 500 companies, even as a kid. Everything is strategic, particularly social activism. You think Target gives back 5% of it's pre-tax revenue because it's a nice to do? No, it's part their public brand (they want YOU to feel good shopping there) plus of course the tax benefits.

But I digress, you are making a protected speech argument in an arena where it doesn't exist.

I'm pretty sure you know that and are simply trying to rile up aggression against 'the woke libs' because...that's your brand on this board.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

You are playing small ball on a little league diamond.

How bout you explain it, then?

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Spent several years as a middle management level employee at two major corporations before venturing out on my own.

While working for major corporations i learned that there were two free speech levels of discussing corporate policies and leadership. The informal and formal.

The informal consisted of barroom chatter in small groups after work. The formal were meetings organized by corporate leaders. During informal meetings we aired our honest feelings (free speech) about working for the corporation. In formal meetings we told the higher ups what they wanted to hear.

An interesting ploy would be a corporate leader who in an informal setting (usually involving a few drinks) asked about your feelings toward a person or policies. In these situations, I would pretend to be openly honest, but keep what I really thought to myself.

The only time you shared your honest feelings (free speech) about the corporation would be during your exit interview, or upon risking having to face an exit interview.

This is not about individuals and institutions, corporate or otherwise. When I was GC for two different public entities, I felt restrained in my public activities. This kind of restraint is not the issue.

As Sey so eloquently said, this is about mobs having institutions by the balls, mostly because institutions are too risk averse to resist. Its called group think with a speech mob at its core.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

How bout you explain it, then?

I did.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Look there are no first amendment rights in the private sector,

No shit. Not the point.

 

[TommyCracker]

If you believe that, you will never understand the point. This is not about the provincial interests of each company or institution. The mob, egged on by special political interests, is controlling expression in the same way across many companies, institutions, and professions. This has got to stop. And it won’t until organizations take a risk. Levis may think they are serving their economic interests now, but it has no way of knowing what is the next item on the mob’s agenda.

Here is how Sey said it. She is not wrong:

But the corporation doesn’t believe in that now. It’s trapped trying to please the mob—and silencing any dissent within the organization. In this it is like so many other American companies: held hostage by intolerant ideologues who do not believe in genuine inclusion or diversity.​

Spoiler alert....it's always been this way.

Companies are going to kow-tow to public trends. Good lord you don't need an advanced marketing degree to understand that.

The market, like any market, swings in one direction until the counter trend forms and it swings in that direction.

What's happening is you are experiencing being on the wrong side of the trend.

You feel threatened by it. You feel like a victim.

Capitalism doesn't give a f about your feelings until you can prove that by doing so it's hurting the company's brand.

Right now all of the 'supposed woke shit' is selling.

I personally think that's a good thing as it helps us move to a more inclusive society but do recognize that it has gone too far in some areas....but it will cause the popular counter trend.

Which is why, as a random example, Spider Man: No Way Home could go down as one of the most important movies of the decade (because it broke the scared storytelling trend whose focus was over correcting for the Me Too movement from five plus years ago and got back to strong characters with depth/consequences for mistakes that they made....and it made billions).

 

[TommyCracker]

No shit. Not the point.

The way you have posted made me wonder since you seem to be arguing that this chick's freedom of speech was violated by it's 'now woke' company.

Which means all you have are feelings and you're simply trying to alarm your fellow conservatives as an example of the evil cancel culture (which again, has existed since the beginning of time).

 

[CO. Hoosier]

What's happening is you are experiencing being on the wrong side of the trend.

There is no right side to this trend. Only bullied and bullies.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

The way you have posted made me wonder since you seem to be arguing that this chick's freedom of speech was violated by it's 'now woke' company.

Which means all you have are feelings and you're simply trying to alarm your fellow conservatives as an example of the evil cancel culture (which again, has existed since the beginning of time).

“Fellow conservatives”. Oh my. I’ve linked and supported a piece by an Elizabeth Warren supporter and you yap about fellow conservatives.

Buh bye.

 

[hoot1]

This is not about individuals and institutions, corporate or otherwise. When I was GC for two different public entities, I felt restrained in my public activities. This kind of restraint is not the issue.

As Sey so eloquently said, this is about mobs having institutions by the balls, mostly because institutions are too risk averse to resist. Its called group think with a speech mob at its core.

Seems to me the CEO of Levis should be concerned about selling denims and not the political issues of the day.

In other words, being constrained about engaging in politics goes with the job.

 

[TommyCracker]

There is no right side to this trend. Only bullied and bullies.

Well right now the social trend is presented as 'standing up to the bullies' (Me too/times up, BLM, LGBTQ) and it's selling.

 

[IUINSB]

“Fellow conservatives”. Oh my. I’ve linked and supported a piece by an Elizabeth Warren supporter and you yap about fellow conservatives.

Buh bye.

A piece by a Warren supporter--you linked AND supported!
Why you dyed in the wool pinko, socialist, woke, HRC loving, liberal.
I'll never trust you again.

 

[TommyCracker]

“Fellow conservatives”. Oh my. I’ve linked and supported a piece by an Elizabeth Warren supporter and you yap about fellow conservatives.

Buh bye.

You've also tried to link a sliver of MLK quotes in a weak attempt to give the impression that he is somehow aligned with you and your ideology, so yeah.

The fact that this girl is supposedly a Warren supporter doesn't alter your common conservative argument that companies are too woke and that you (conservatives) are victims.