How much is your free expression worth?

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

That’s the problem , hoot. Who in the hell made kids in school a political issue? That’s nuts and that thinking is why institutions are turning people into mind-numb robots. Levis along with thousands of similar risk averse institutions make it worse. Levi’s can mumble something about saLes, but this is much more than Levi’s and sales. Higher Ed, lower Ed, NGO’s and all levels of governments, are succumbing to the same mob mentality. This is not how societies, ideas, and individuals flourish.

 

[IUCrazy2]

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

That is not selling, there are just no alternatives because all the corporate boards went woke at the same time.

I would drop every other provider in a heartbeat to buy products made by and from businesses that said, "I am just here to sell you this quality product."

To CoH's point that I do not think is being expressed in a way that you all are not catching, yes, Corporations are free to do what they like, but having them actively engaging in creating a social compact of bullying and silencing people should be antithetical to what we want to have as part of our secular morality.

The "woke" are bullies. Allowing the country to be run by bullies who believe they have found a way to shut people up is a bad idea. That idea is made even worse when you realize that bullying will eventually inspire some subset of the populace to rebel. And the rebellion is more than likely to be along racial lines. And Corporate America is helping sow the seeds of that destruction.

And what we have now is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism at best and proto-fascism at worst.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

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.

I’ve also cited with approval other liberals. Unlike you, I see good ideas as good ideas regardless of who holds them. You seem to operate with impenetrable filters.

 

[TommyCracker]

That is not selling, there are just no alternatives because all the corporate boards went woke at the same time.

I would drop every other provider in a heartbeat to buy products made by and from businesses that said, "I am just here to sell you this quality product."

To CoH's point that I do not think is being expressed in a way that you all are not catching, yes, Corporations are free to do what they like, but having them actively engaging in creating a social compact of bullying and silencing people should be antithetical to what we want to have as part of our secular morality.

The "woke" are bullies. Allowing the country to be run by bullies who believe they have found a way to shut people up is a bad idea. That idea is made even worse when you realize that bullying will eventually inspire some subset of the populace to rebel. And the rebellion is more than likely to be along racial lines. And Corporate America is helping sow the seeds of that destruction.

And what we have now is not capitalism, it is crony capitalism at best and proto-fascism at worst.

Meh, you're on the wrong side of a trend curve.

People have been on the wrong side of trend curves since the beginning of time (ever notice how the toothbrush mustache disappeared after 1945?).

Here's a tip, the more obnoxious your movement is (and yes, you are being labeled and put into a category/box) especially when it comes to the use of violence.... you'll never be on the right side of the trend curve for a long time (ie the toothbrush mustache).

Because conservative voices aren't being silenced. They aren't being fired from jobs.

The obnoxious ones are.

That's been the case since the beginning of time.

You have to decide, as everyone has, if you're passion for the cause is worth the heat that you're going to get from the social accepted norms of the particular time.

Again it's personal brand management.

 

[larsIU]

I would drop every other provider in a heartbeat to buy products made by and from businesses that said, "I am just here to sell you this quality product."

A lot of companies make the same product or provide the same service. And at similar quality levels. So how to they distinguish themselves? Marketing

Me, I don't care. I just overanalyze Amazon reviews.

but having them actively engaging in creating a social compact of bullying and silencing people should be antithetical to what we want to have as part of our secular morality.

They're not "creating" the social compact. They are marketing to it. To sell products. Because....America.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

The "woke" are bullies. Allowing the country to be run by bullies who believe they have found a way to shut people up is a bad idea. That idea is made even worse when you realize that bullying will eventually inspire some subset of the populace to rebel. And the rebellion is more than likely to be along racial lines. And Corporate America is helping sow the seeds of that destruction.

Please assure me that you see the hypocrisy of this criticism of the "woke".

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

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.

Are you for employment at will or not?

Are you for employment at will except when that will doesn't suit you?

I'm not sure how "employment at will" is irrelevant when that is exactly what levis took advantage of.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

“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.

looking for a good mirror for you since you don't appear to have one

 

[TommyCracker]

I’ve also cited with approval other liberals. Unlike you, I see good ideas as good ideas regardless of who holds them. You seem to operate with impenetrable filters.

I probably do as I tend to be overly pragmatic and too linear when I'm problem solving (I'm the type of person who typically first says 'no, that's not possible with how the rules are set' but then after some time to reflect can figure out how to make it work within the rules of my own head.

It's why I have always scored an I-internal instead of an E-external in those Myers Briggs personality tests these corporations always made me take which keeps me out of the most common quadrant, to the shock of everyone I work with because I'm fairly outgoing).

So yeah, I'll admit I might be stuck in my linear thought but I don't think I'm alone when I say that you have a brand on this forum, that's typically of a right wing hack who's purpose is to point out how horrible the libs are.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. It has been entertaining and that's a good thing.

 

[anon_mya1phvcpf5x4]

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.

I don't recall COH and other conservatives being up in arms about it....maybe I missed a thread. Employment at will is more of a conservative position (not a liberal one).

Ask CoH why he is changing his tune on that if you want to ask about someone flip flopping positions based on the circumstances.

Well, maybe this will make conservatives rethink unions and employee rights lmao.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I don't recall COH and other conservatives being up in arms about it....maybe I missed a thread.

No but you miss the nuance.

 

[twenty02]

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.

That doesn't always work great when your business is really about brand/image promotion... not an actual product. Denim is a commodity product.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

I probably do as I tend to be overly pragmatic and too linear when I'm problem solving (I'm the type of person who typically first says 'no, that's not possible with how the rules are set' but then after some time to reflect can figure out how to make it work within the rules of my own head.

It's why I have always scored an I-internal instead of an E-external in those Myers Briggs personality tests these corporations always made me take which keeps me out of the most common quadrant, to the shock of everyone I work with because I'm fairly outgoing).

So yeah, I'll admit I might be stuck in my linear thought but I don't think I'm alone when I say that you have a brand on this forum, that's typically of a right wing hack who's purpose is to point out how horrible the libs are.

Anyway, I appreciate the discussion. It has been entertaining and that's a good thing.

Slouching towards conformity is not good for society, institution, or people.

If I have a brand, it’s in the minds of others, not mine. I’ve strongly advocated for several thought to be liberal ideas on this forum. i bet you can’t name any because all you see is a brand.

 

[hoot1]

That’s the problem , hoot. Who in the hell made kids in school is a political issue? That’s nuts and that thinking is why institutions are turning people into mind-numb robots. Levis along with thousands of similar risk averse institutions make it worse. Levi’s can mumble something about saLes, but this is much more than Levi’s and sales. Higher Ed, lower Ed, NGO’s and all levels of governments, are succumbing to the same mob mentality. This is not how societies, ideas, and individuals flourish.

COH, isn't our form of democracy built around the idea of succumbing to the mob mentality of the majority ?

Well actually, we elect people who we hope will run things better than the average members of the mob who prefer to focus on making a living rather than participating in how government or schools are run. COH, to your point, it appears hope is running out in at least some places in our country.

This brings up the question, to what extent does the mob want to participate in the process of governing and running schools, and how will this come about ?

Finally, just don't see private corporations caving into the mob at the expense of profits. Through public relation gimmicks such as the Levi firing they may appear to be caving. However just like their mission statements, these acts are merely symbolic.

 

[hoot1]

That doesn't always work great when you're business is really about brand/image promotion... not an actual product. Denim is a commodity product.

Good point.

I meant to edit my post and replace denim with Levi. but didn't get around to it.

Around the globe Levi is to denim jeans as Kleenex is to facial tissue.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

COH, isn't our form of democracy built around the idea of succumbing to the mob mentality of the majority ?

Well actually, we elect people who we hope will run things better than the average members of the mob who prefer to focus on making a living rather than participating in how government or schools are run. COH, to your point, it appears hope is running out in at least some places in our country.

This brings up the question, to what extent does the mob want to participate in the process of governing and running schools, and how will this come about ?

Finally, just don't see private corporations caving into the mob at the expense of profits. Through public relation gimmicks such as the Levi firing they may appear to be caving. However just like their mission statements, these acts are merely symbolic.

A thriving democracy and society depends on competing ideas and free expression. What we are becoming now is a society hell-bent on conformity and suppression of the free exchange of different ideas. This cannot be sustainable. Conformity of ideas is a false profit. Months ago, I started a thread about free speech dying of a thousand cuts. What Levis did to Sey is an example of more than a little cut.

 

[VanPastorMan]

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.

My issue is when government and business are working together to squelch free speech.

 

[TommyCracker]

Slouching towards conformity is not good for society, institution, or people.

If I have a brand, it’s in the minds of others, not mine. I’ve strongly advocated for several thought to be liberal ideas on this forum. i bet you can’t name any because all you see is a brand.

We've always slouched towards conformity as defined by the era.

As Hoot stated, we're kindof set up that way as a democratic society. The 'mob' happens naturally.

We're constantly trying to move the Overton window, we're always playing tug of war with what's considered acceptable social norms.

Isn't 'conservative' by definition trying to keep social norms from changing?

Businesses just follow the money.

Check out these hilarious, serious commercials from the past. These brands would get shredded to pieces today...but they just reflect the social norms for their era good, bad...doesn't matter.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Meh, you're on the wrong side of a trend curve.

People have been on the wrong side of trend curves since the beginning of time (ever notice how the toothbrush mustache disappeared after 1945?).

Here's a tip, the more obnoxious your movement is (and yes, you are being labeled and put into a category/box) especially when it comes to the use of violence.... you'll never be on the right side of the trend curve for a long time (ie the toothbrush mustache).

Because conservative voices aren't being silenced. They aren't being fired from jobs.

The obnoxious ones are.

That's been the case since the beginning of time.

You have to decide, as everyone has, if you're passion for the cause is worth the heat that you're going to get from the social accepted norms of the particular time.

Again it's personal brand management.

Obnoxious...

 

[TommyCracker]

A thriving democracy and society depends on competing ideas and free expression. What we are becoming now is a society hell-bent on conformity and suppression of the free exchange of different ideas. This cannot be sustainable. Conformity of ideas is a false profit. Months ago, I started a thread about free speech dying of a thousand cuts. What Levis did to Sey is an example of more than a little cut.

No we're not.

The obnoxious voices are being rejected by the marketplace of ideas.

That's how it works.

 

[IUCrazy2]

Please assure me that you see the hypocrisy of this criticism of the "woke".

The woke have an obsession with categorizing people by characteristics, assigning thought to them based on said characteristics, and then bullying them into silence should they deign to offer a different opinion. There is an article from a Canadian media provider basically arguing that "freedom" is racist.

If you take a group of people that has seen themselves as individuals and argue to them that they really are not, they are part of a group like everyone else, and that unlike all those other groups (who are claiming their attachment to said group is THE most important and guiding thing in their life) they are not able to identify in that manner you are going to creat a subset of those people who will rebel and it will be along racial lines.

That is not hypocrisy, it is saying that this bad behavior is likely to lead to counter bad behavior in the future. It is all bad.

People are not their color. Timmy is right, I am on the wrong side of that curve and proudly so. Most of the country used to be there too but quite a few people have lost their damn minds and here we are.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

We're constantly trying to move the Overton window, we're always playing tug of war with what's considered acceptable social norms.

I think that’s mostly correct. I’m old enough to remember important changes with evolution prompted by conversation, discussion and debate. Now we do it with marches, arson, truck convoys, job loss and other indicia of intolerance. What’s next?

 

[Ohio Guy]

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

I'm glad I read through all the posts here. I was just about to post something along the lines of her turning down her severance because she could afford to - or soon will be able to afford to many times over.

 

[i'vegotwinners]

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.

is "employment at will" the new code phrase for "fire at will"?

that said, it's not like it was personal.

it's just business.

 

[aajohn2000]

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

Outstanding piece and good for her. Unfortunately most do j it behave the financial means and even more the bravery to take the leap. Than you for sharing this.

 

[aajohn2000]

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.

Hurting the companies brand? Maybe. But that is very subjective. An argument could be made that had the company supported her, that would also support their brand. Most of these large corps are hypocritical which is to say, do as we say, not as we do. This is a classic example of it. The truth is Levi’s probably would sell just as many jeans, if not more, had they supported her. However, they couldn’t take the heat from the loud cancel culture mob, so they released her like the cowards and weak leaders they are. They took the easy route. Keeping her and supporting an employee that literally grew up with the company would have the been the difficult road. They are total hypocrit wimps!

 

[larsIU]

If you take a group of people that has seen themselves as individuals and argue to them that they really are not, they are part of a group like everyone else, and that unlike all those other groups (who are claiming their attachment to said group is THE most important and guiding thing in their life) they are not able to identify in that manner you are going to create a subset of those people who will rebel and it will be along racial lines.

If your message is that people should be seen as individuals, with beliefs which may vary wildly from someone who looks just like them, then I agree. We shouldn't lump people together based on a racial, religious, or even political demographic.

But then you added the bolded part "who are claiming their attachment to said group is THE most important and guiding thing in their life". Is that not turning individuals into a group? Or at a minimum making a rather broad assumption based on your understanding of them? Sure some people may do that and the youtube vid you posted shows a few. But it's probably not even the majority. Probably not even close. Just like the majority of white people actually don't support trump and sure as hell didn't condone 1/6/21.

I've been called a "liberal" (whatever that means), a "leftie" (ditto) and my daughter believes I'm a "Trumper" b/c I don't wear a mask everywhere. However, I identify as George Clooney. Has that ever paid off. Nope.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

The woke have an obsession with categorizing people by characteristics, assigning thought to them based on said characteristics, and then bullying them into silence should they deign to offer a different opinion.

You just defined “woke” by acting woke.

 

[TommyCracker]

Hurting the companies brand? Maybe. But that is very subjective. An argument could be made that had the company supported her, that would also support their brand. Most of these large corps are hypocritical which is to say, do as we say, not as we do. This is a classic example of it. The truth is Levi’s probably would sell just as many jeans, if not more, had they supported her. However, they couldn’t take the heat from the loud cancel culture mob, so they released her like the cowards and weak leaders they are. They took the easy route. Keeping her and supporting an employee that literally grew up with the company would have the been the difficult road. They are total hypocrit wimps!

My guess is that she was much more outspoken in public than how she's describing herself and/or she is grossly miscalculated her self worth.

I'm not going to go digging through her social media because I don't care, but school closings are and were a lightning rod social and political topic this past year. Already when she because a keep school open in the middle of a health crisis, in California (I think) that I'm guessing she was, ah hem, strong in public. As a representative of the company, she probably painted the company in a light they weren't pleased with.

This 'how can you argue against the kids' is the same misrepresentation that has been used over and over.

Hell it's how qanon got so many followers so crazy so quickly (as we know, child abuse isn't tolerated. Not even in prison). It was 'save the children! How can you be against that!!'

It's the same as 'why don't you want proper ID to vote?' when discussing all of these state voter law proposals to quoting MLK like 'MLK said judge a man by his character not by the color of his skin' as if you and MLK stand shoulder to shoulder, united as one when it comes to something like reverse racism accusations or whatnot.

 

[aajohn2000]

My guess is that she was much more outspoken in public than how she's describing herself and/or she is grossly miscalculated her self worth.

I'm not going to go digging through her social media because I don't care, but school closings are and were a lightning rod social and political topic this past year. Already when she because a keep school open in the middle of a health crisis, in California (I think) that I'm guessing she was, ah hem, strong in public. As a representative of the company, she probably painted the company in a light they weren't pleased with.

This 'how can you argue against the kids' is the same misrepresentation that has been used over and over.

Hell it's how qanon got so many followers so crazy so quickly (as we know, child abuse isn't tolerated. Not even in prison). It was 'save the children! How can you be against that!!'

It's the same as 'why don't you want proper ID to vote?' when discussing all of these state voter law proposals to quoting MLK like 'MLK said judge a man by his character not by the color of his skin' as if you and MLK stand shoulder to shoulder, united as one when it comes to something like reverse racism accusations or whatnot.

I think the article does a very good job of telling how outspoken she was. And yes she was not only in California, but the epicenter of liberalism San Francisco. Again, her company chose to go with the herd than allow her to do what is her constitutional right and according to the article, the companies own Hr said she was right on the issues. But Levi’s caved to the mob and cancel culture. Good for her for keeping her voice and allowing it to be heard. I still maintain Levi’s, from a business perspective, would likely have sold more jeans by endorsing her right to stand up for her beliefs. But they opted out and took the easy route. Another failed C Suite leadership group.

In regards to what you wrote regarding voting laws. It’s indefensible to not require an ID to vote. It’s basic common sense and id’s are required and commonplace all over the place. Including admittance for my wife, as an example, into the UNC women’s cancer center to receive treatment. Yet NC does not require an ID to vote.

Hell, the same liberal states requiring vaccine cards AND ID to eat at a restaurant are the same one’s who say it’s an injustice and racist to require an if to vote. But I digress. JOMO.

 

[Bulk VanderHuge]

I think the article does a very good job of telling how outspoken she was. And yes she was not only in California, but the epicenter of liberalism San Francisco. Again, her company chose to go with the herd than allow her to do what is her constitutional right and according to the article, the companies own Hr said she was right on the issues. But Levi’s caved to the mob and cancel culture. Good for her for keeping her voice and allowing it to be heard. I still maintain Levi’s, from a business perspective, would likely have sold more jeans by endorsing her right to stand up for her beliefs. But they opted out and took the easy route. Another failed C Suite leadership group.

In regards to what you wrote regarding voting laws. It’s indefensible to not require an ID to vote. It’s basic common sense and id’s are required and commonplace all over the place. Including admittance for my wife, as an example, into the UNC women’s cancer center to receive treatment. Yet NC does not require an ID to vote.

Hell, the same liberal states requiring vaccine cards AND ID to eat at a restaurant are the same one’s who say it’s an injustice and racist to require an if to vote. But I digress. JOMO.

This has nothing to do with her Constitutional Rights.

 

[TommyCracker]

I think the article does a very good job of telling how outspoken she was. And yes she was not only in California, but the epicenter of liberalism San Francisco. Again, her company chose to go with the herd than allow her to do what is her constitutional right and according to the article, the companies own Hr said she was right on the issues. But Levi’s caved to the mob and cancel culture. Good for her for keeping her voice and allowing it to be heard. I still maintain Levi’s, from a business perspective, would likely have sold more jeans by endorsing her right to stand up for her beliefs. But they opted out and took the easy route. Another failed C Suite leadership group.

In regards to what you wrote regarding voting laws. It’s indefensible to not require an ID to vote. It’s basic common sense and id’s are required and commonplace all over the place. Including admittance for my wife, as an example, into the UNC women’s cancer center to receive treatment. Yet NC does not require an ID to vote.

Hell, the same liberal states requiring vaccine cards AND ID to eat at a restaurant are the same one’s who say it’s an injustice and racist to require an if to vote. But I digress. JOMO.

If these republican led voter law proposals were just about pictured IDs then yes, you can rhetorically ask why someone is against providing a pictured ID.

But it's not. It's a weak manipulative tactic.

 

[IUCrazy2]

If your message is that people should be seen as individuals, with beliefs which may vary wildly from someone who looks just like them, then I agree. We shouldn't lump people together based on a racial, religious, or even political demographic.

But then you added the bolded part "who are claiming their attachment to said group is THE most important and guiding thing in their life". Is that not turning individuals into a group? Or at a minimum making a rather broad assumption based on your understanding of them? Sure some people may do that and the youtube vid you posted shows a few. But it's probably not even the majority. Probably not even close. Just like the majority of white people actually don't support trump and sure as hell didn't condone 1/6/21.

I've been called a "liberal" (whatever that means), a "leftie" (ditto) and my daughter believes I'm a "Trumper" b/c I don't wear a mask everywhere. However, I identify as George Clooney. Has that ever paid off. Nope.

So you agree with me.

I apparently did not convey what I was attempting to say so let me try again. I believe that "woke" people believe that a person's skin color is the main determining factor of success in this country. That is followed by who they want to have sex with. They also believe that "whiteness" is the defining characteristic of white people. So they create these groups that are defined around race THE defining characteristic. They set aside safe spaces for POC. They celebrate their "black, brown, or other colorness". Then having set up a world where that is THE most important factor, they tell all those "white" people "but you cannot do that...your skin color is a sin based on history."

So you have a disconnect wherein you socially construct a world and then tell a group they cannot participate because they are the wrong race. So they basically took racism and wrapped it in a new package so that they get to be the oppressor. "The only answer for past racism is current racism."

And that is going to generate the same type of bad feelings that their ancestors felt. You aren't a man. You are a white man. Everything else about you is subordinate to that.

The youtube video I shared is a documentary produced by Showtime. It is (thankfully) getting panned by just about everyone. So their may be some hope for us yet. But you know who features prominently in that "documentary"? Ibram Kendi. You know what else they push? History based on the 1619 project. That is the stuff being pushed in Corporate America. It may be sanitized, but when Tommy Cracker says I am on the wrong side of the values curve, that is what underpins the other side.

If you view yourself as an individual, I agree. None of us are part of some monolithic group. "Woke", "anti-racist", or whatever name you want to give the ideology is a cancer to our society. These people should be free to produce their idiocy, but we need to call it out for what it is.

 

[larsIU]

So you agree with me.

I apparently did not convey what I was attempting to say so let me try again. I believe that "woke" people believe that a person's skin color is the main determining factor of success in this country. That is followed by who they want to have sex with. They also believe that "whiteness" is the defining characteristic of white people. So they create these groups that are defined around race THE defining characteristic. They set aside safe spaces for POC. They celebrate their "black, brown, or other colorness". Then having set up a world where that is THE most important factor, they tell all those "white" people "but you cannot do that...your skin color is a sin based on history."

So you have a disconnect wherein you socially construct a world and then tell a group they cannot participate because they are the wrong race. So they basically took racism and wrapped it in a new package so that they get to be the oppressor. "The only answer for past racism is current racism."

And that is going to generate the same type of bad feelings that their ancestors felt. You aren't a man. You are a white man. Everything else about you is subordinate to that.

The youtube video I shared is a documentary produced by Showtime. It is (thankfully) getting panned by just about everyone. So their may be some hope for us yet. But you know who features prominently in that "documentary"? Ibram Kendi. You know what else they push? History based on the 1619 project. That is the stuff being pushed in Corporate America. It may be sanitized, but when Tommy Cracker says I am on the wrong side of the values curve, that is what underpins the other side.

If you view yourself as an individual, I agree. None of us are part of some monolithic group. "Woke", "anti-racist", or whatever name you want to give the ideology is a cancer to our society. These people should be free to produce their idiocy, but we need to call it out for what it is.

If you view "woke" people as a monolithic group, then yes, you're description is apt. However, I tend to think of "woke" like anything else. It can go waayyyyyyy too far. Is it woke to, as a white man, consider that there may have been interactions in your own life from which you benefitted (or received the benefit of the doubt) b/c you're white. Maybe, maybe not. But is just considering that question "woke". Is it "woke" to look back at American history and ponder whether actions taken by local and federal government disproportionately disadvantated POC?

It's relative. Can you answer yes to the questions above and not be "woke". If we want to define "wokeness" as people only near or past the Kendi level, then OK. But I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I tend to agree that the "turn it up to 11" approach of dealing with past injustices isn't going to help society and will create animosity and resentment (as you note). I also tend to think this will all even out over the next few years and swing back from the precipice as more and more people begin to recognize that belonging to a group and having to toe the line is boring. That they don't have to agree with everything somebody posts online, etc. I hope so anyway.

 

[iuwclurker]

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.

Nothing you said disagreed with my post. Levi’s made a business decision, duh.

 

[IUCrazy2]

If you view "woke" people as a monolithic group, then yes, you're description is apt. However, I tend to think of "woke" like anything else. It can go waayyyyyyy too far. Is it woke to, as a white man, consider that there may have been interactions in your own life from which you benefitted (or received the benefit of the doubt) b/c you're white. Maybe, maybe not. But is just considering that question "woke". Is it "woke" to look back at American history and ponder whether actions taken by local and federal government disproportionately disadvantated POC?

It's relative. Can you answer yes to the questions above and not be "woke". If we want to define "wokeness" as people only near or past the Kendi level, then OK. But I don't think that's necessarily the case.

I tend to agree that the "turn it up to 11" approach of dealing with past injustices isn't going to help society and will create animosity and resentment (as you note). I also tend to think this will all even out over the next few years and swing back from the precipice as more and more people begin to recognize that belonging to a group and having to toe the line is boring. That they don't have to agree with everything somebody posts online, etc. I hope so anyway.

Paragraph one, having a racial discussion does not make one "woke" in my book. However, the people in that video are "woke" as hell. And I would like to again point out that Ibram Kendi is featured prominently in that video. And his books and outlook very much influence the "anti-racist" and CRT adjacent material that has become fashionable to be covered in corporate meetings, teacher's professional development, and in the construction of school curriculum. So it is kind of hard to paint the people in that video as just the whackadoodles. They are whack, but they are very much the mainstream of that movement. Which is why the Whoopi statements a few weeks ago did not shock me. Anyone who has pulled back the lid on this stuff at all knows that she was preaching from the handbook. Tamika Mallory, in the video. Linda Sarsour, in the video. You may recognize them from the Women's March when Trump got into office. Jamelle Hill. In the video. These are not the fringe. They are leaders of the movement.

I can admit that my white skin, probably more through my ancestors was a benefit much in the same way that Barack Obama's dark skin probably helped him receive some of the education he received...as it helps many, many non-white, non-Jewish, and non-Asian students to this day.

I do agree with your last paragraph, my hope is that the people in the video and the movement they represent get sidelined. That video is getting universally panned right now so that is a start.

 

[TommyCracker]

So you agree with me.

I apparently did not convey what I was attempting to say so let me try again. I believe that "woke" people believe that a person's skin color is the main determining factor of success in this country. That is followed by who they want to have sex with. They also believe that "whiteness" is the defining characteristic of white people. So they create these groups that are defined around race THE defining characteristic. They set aside safe spaces for POC. They celebrate their "black, brown, or other colorness". Then having set up a world where that is THE most important factor, they tell all those "white" people "but you cannot do that...your skin color is a sin based on history."

So you have a disconnect wherein you socially construct a world and then tell a group they cannot participate because they are the wrong race. So they basically took racism and wrapped it in a new package so that they get to be the oppressor. "The only answer for past racism is current racism."

And that is going to generate the same type of bad feelings that their ancestors felt. You aren't a man. You are a white man. Everything else about you is subordinate to that.

The youtube video I shared is a documentary produced by Showtime. It is (thankfully) getting panned by just about everyone. So their may be some hope for us yet. But you know who features prominently in that "documentary"? Ibram Kendi. You know what else they push? History based on the 1619 project. That is the stuff being pushed in Corporate America. It may be sanitized, but when Tommy Cracker says I am on the wrong side of the values curve, that is what underpins the other side.

If you view yourself as an individual, I agree. None of us are part of some monolithic group. "Woke", "anti-racist", or whatever name you want to give the ideology is a cancer to our society. These people should be free to produce their idiocy, but we need to call it out for what it is.

It would great if we could just say, okay starting right now racism is officially over. Let's just be cool starting now. Clean slate okay?

How I'm interpreting the reverse racism and victim hood complaints comes from a place where a lot of groups simply just want to be heard and, and this is a huge ask, be respected.

I'm going to watch your clip tonight when I get time (unless I'm pissed off about the game) but off the bat it says something to the effect of 'here is the American story told from the pov of the minority'.

Okay, I'm listening. I'd like to learn because, gasp, I grew up with an amazingly non-dramatic life in my small town in my house then at my college and then in my marketing job.

Compare that to a former peer who cried in her office when Trump won. I asked her why and she said because he supports stop and frisk and then tells me her husband (who is black) has had to kiss concrete five times up here in liberalville with a police gun to his head for minor traffic offenses and she was worried with Trump, it was about to get worse.

I've never had that experience.

Anyway, the slogan is black lives matter, not black lives rule. As Michael Che said, 'we're just asking to matter. The most minimum amount of respect'.

With that in mind I come here and get....white victim hood?

C'mon we're better than that.

I get a little 'cancel culture's on here. Are we really defending being an asshole to people? What are we worried that me might lose the right to pull out dicks out at work in front of a girl and tell her 'it's not going to suck itself' (okay that was an attempt at some dark humor in light of the Louis CK story).

Look, as a white dude, I have absolutely zero fear that minorities are going to take my place, take my job, take over power and make me their slaves so yeah, I roll my eyes at how tilted white dudes get with some of this stuff.

Listening, relating and understanding is what I believe this so called reverse racist movement is about.

One more thing, I also struggle with how some people are so defensive of their ancestors. Hell my grandfather loved the hell out of me and I loved him to death....but he was racist as hell. I wouldn't be surprised if he was secretly Klan. He hated minorities especially blacks...but he was sweet grandpa to me.

As I've said before, I have tapes of me playing basketball as a young adult that would destroy any chance at a political career. It's all 'suck my d#_k fa#$ot' gay slurs that I thought was funny trash talk. My grandchildren will probably say the same thing I said about my grand dad...he was so sweet and supportive of me, but papa Tcrack was an embarrassing homophobe based on these tapes as a youth'.

The past is what is was. Whitewashing/sanitizing and propagating it dangerous and dumb.

Sorry for the rant but thanks for the video link. I will watch it.

 

[UncleMark]

I read the article. The closing comments made me stop for a second and wonder if this hadn't been written by Liz Cheney.

In the end, no one stood with me. Not one person publicly said they agreed with me, or even that they didn’t agree with me, but supported my right to say what I believe anyway.​

​

I like to think that many of my now-former colleagues know that this is wrong. I like to think that they stayed silent because they feared losing their standing at work or incurring the wrath of the mob. I hope, in time, they’ll acknowledge as much.​

 

[Marvin the Martian]

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?

Wasn't it Friedman who wrote of The Golden Straightjacket? The idea was the global market would force politicians into very narrow policy options or risk their country being cut out of the global market. And Friedman was thought a genius for the book that introduced the concept as a good thing.

It appears that same straightjacket is worn by corporate executives.

 

[CO. Hoosier]

Wasn't it Friedman who wrote of The Golden Straightjacket? The idea was the global market would force politicians into very narrow policy options or risk their country being cut out of the global market. And Friedman was thought a genius for the book that introduced the concept as a good thing.

It appears that same straightjacket is worn by corporate executives.

The Golden straitjacket is about economics.

This thread is not about that no matter how much you return to the notion that Levis made an economic decision. Levi’s is in lockstep with a broad swath of institutions who don’t need to worry about sales and the good ol’ bottom line. Sey carefully pointed out that Levi’s departed from its own traditions for the sense of security social conformity brings.