How much is your free expression worth?
- Thread starter CO. Hoosier
- Start date
Voters agree with ex-Levi’s brand president.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
'Morning Joe' panel says Democrats have 'super wokeness' problem following San Francisco school board vote
A "Morning Joe" panel said Democrats had a "wokeness problem" in a discussion of the San Francisco school board vote,
In Landslide, San Francisco Forces Out 3 Board of Education Members
The recall, which galvanized Asian Americans, was a victory for parents angered by the district’s priorities during the pandemic.
San Francisco voters oust three school board members in recall vote, CNN projects
Three San Francisco School Board members were removed from their positions by voters on Tuesday, CNN projects, following a tough recall campaign that pitted Democrats against Democrats as interlocking controversies over school closings and renamings fueled a well-funded backlash.
amp.cnn.com
Yep. Levis home town is San Francisco. It had to know that Sey’s point of view was acceptable to most of the the public, yet Levis persisted in its efforts to shut her up or kick her out. The Woke mob is a powerful bully, but it is only a bully.Voters agree with ex-Levi’s brand president.
'Morning Joe' panel says Democrats have 'super wokeness' problem following San Francisco school board vote
A "Morning Joe" panel said Democrats had a "wokeness problem" in a discussion of the San Francisco school board vote,www.foxnews.com
In Landslide, San Francisco Forces Out 3 Board of Education Members
The recall, which galvanized Asian Americans, was a victory for parents angered by the district’s priorities during the pandemic.www.nytimes.com
San Francisco voters oust three school board members in recall vote, CNN projects
Three San Francisco School Board members were removed from their positions by voters on Tuesday, CNN projects, following a tough recall campaign that pitted Democrats against Democrats as interlocking controversies over school closings and renamings fueled a well-funded backlash.
And you came to that conclusion off what...one op ed from her being able to frame and control her story with no cross examination?
Yeah, real convincing.
We don't need to hear Levi's rationale. We don't even need to look at what she actually did.
This reminds me of the American Frontline Doctors sham that you all fell for and pointed to as proof that Covid basically didn't exist.
Then the one doctor started talking about demon sperm.
Lol
She has a right to her opinion (which I strenuously disagree with), and they have the right to fire her. Complete nothing burger.
Of course you both are correct. I don’t think I’d want to live or work in the environment you both accept. Stifling expression because one has a right to demand conformity is not a good thing.
I think it's similar to the Chris Klewe story.
He was an all pro punter that became a pretty popular media guest and then strongly started advocating for gay rights and same sex marriages when they were being discussed.
The Vikings dumped him. He immediately accused that the Vikings didn't cut him because of performance, it was because he was an outspoken public voice for liberal causes. IIRC, I believed he accused the organization of having pervasively strong homophobic leadership.
Kluwe then went to Oakland and again was cut.
He then claimed he was blackballed by the NFL for being an outspoken voice on political causes.
The argument against him was that he was a disposable punter whose advocacy became a distraction to the team.
So it's good to know there was one conservative voice out there that was on Klewe's side in the name of free speech. You weren't telling him to 'shut up and punt' like the majority was.
Accept wait...I'm pretty sure I remember you complaining fiercely about all the BLM messaging in sports, especially after the Floyd incident.
And as Mark pointed out, I don't remember you arguing against the censoring of Liz Chaney by your own party, who is one of the most conservative senators in the chamber when it comes to actual policy, which is all that you say anyone should care about.
You also argue against 'wokism' (whatever that is) and want to stifle it before it spreads into our institutions. Well guess what, yeah that's a form of censorship.
For example conservatives are trying to pass legislation banning liberal concepts, like CRT, from being discussed in schools. You can't get more censored that passing anti-concept legislation. That's almost book burning level of censorship.
Back to this story, don't forget it was that far left liberal Richard Nixon that indoctrinated that businesses (particularly malls) had no liability to uphold first amendment rights (mall owners didn't have to let speakers that they didn't agree with access to their property to speak in a public setting) which Thurgood Marshall opined for.
So yeah, you kindof do accept this environment. You've just rarely had it work against you.
It’s weird that you seem to be so allergic to parents being concerned about their children.
It's not a question of acceptance. I think 99% of organizations operate this way. If you want to work for one of them, you have to abide by their rules. There are numerous rules I disagree with.
She resigned. The good news for corporate pawns is they have more power than they've had for at least 50 years.
So hang on... if we agree that Kaepernick should be allowed to kneel (meaning his right), then you should agree that NFL owners have the right not to employ him. I'm sure you are okay with this, right?
Many of the people I work with are career types who view their job with some kind of loyalty. It's their identity. To me it's mostly a paycheck.
Everyone is entitled to their own lifestyle. I'll say regarding your last sentence, you are probably facing an uphill battle to continue moving up the totem pole. But, your likely experience far more freedom (and hopefully more happiness) than people that obsess over work.
Kaepernick, Klewe, and Sey made choices. All three stood on their convictions. We can agree or disagree on their merits but they took that stand. Their employers felt the stand went against their goal of making money.
Now that might seem weird for Kaepernick - but the NFL is definitely not about winning/losing games (ask Lions,
Agree. And FWIW, I'd prefer people not get canned for their political views, even if they are against those of their employer. Though there are clearly some lines that should never be crossed (e.g., pro genocide or something ludicrous). How you distinguish, I don't know, as I'm sure there are areas more gray to some that others view as black and white.
I'm counting down the days until I leave. Next June hopefully. It's nice when you don't care if you lose your job. And I have about the safest job possible.
Sounds like most government employees I know
Probably 100% of organizations operate this way. This observation doesn’t address the issue.
In Colorado an employee cannot face adverse job action for legal off the job conduct, unless the conduct adversly affects the employers‘ interests. (E.g. making porn movies) The question is whether an employee taking a position inconsistent wokeness should satisfy, the exception whether or not California has a similar statute.
If we take a step back, isn't a lot of this part of the issue of corporations taking political and social stances, in general? In prior decades, companies tended to stay more silent, even if their leaders voiced opinions. Now, we have entire corporations trying to speak for their employees, customers, suppliers and other stakeholders, which just doesn't seem right.
A great example was that debate we all had over the Gillette anti-masculinity commercial a few Super Bowls ago. Some employees undoubtedly would not agree with the statements, but now part of their identity is aligned with those views simply because they work at Gillette or P&G more broadly.
Elected officials are supposed to represent the constituency which they serve. Are employees now supposed to view corporations like elected officials and make sure they are philosophically aligned? This doesn't seem like a positive direction for productivity, economic growth and sustainability and society.
A great example was that debate we all had over the Gillette anti-masculinity commercial a few Super Bowls ago. Some employees undoubtedly would not agree with the statements, but now part of their identity is aligned with those views simply because they work at Gillette or P&G more broadly.
Elected officials are supposed to represent the constituency which they serve. Are employees now supposed to view corporations like elected officials and make sure they are philosophically aligned? This doesn't seem like a positive direction for productivity, economic growth and sustainability and society.
I have to believe these companies think their alignment with a cause, etc. is profitable for them. And, if it is, it is incredibly cheap marketing right? Look at how GOOD we are. Case in point, Nike. They sign Kaepernick but have sweatshops and child laborers overseas. Better to focus people's gaze on our philanthropic efforts, no? In the old days companies were getting pilloried for the things Nike does now. But they are making people make a choice. "How can I hate Nike when they do so much for racial justice?". Much like politicians, they force people into a "lesser of two evils" argument. "Look at Nike. They do SO much more than Adidas." And, boom, human rights abuses overseas are forgotten.
Pretty shrewd shit actually.
It doesn't end with corporations. Take a look at many of the hyprocrite athletes they endorse, ie Lebron.
Last edited:
He's really dedicated to this wokeness narrative, even when it no longer makes any sense.
Modern business is more about branding than anything else, and I'm not sure these conflicts can be avoided in such a world.
Actually I'm trying to make an even simpler point....this is how it is and has always been whether I like it or not, but it's what we all accept as part of having a capitalistic environment.
Know your environment. This one has different rules and very little constitutional protection.
Lars is hitting on what I'm trying to hit on much better than I have.
In this example a person became outspoken for a cause. The company wasn't comfortable with that and told her to dial it down. She didn't. They forced her out.
End of story.
COH is pointing out that the company is not standing up to wokism but it doesn't matter what the cause is. This has been going on since the beginning of time.
When you go work for a company you need to understand and be okay with what the company stands for.
I probably wouldn't last long at Fox.
I probably wouldn't last long at Chic FiL a being a strongly agnostic heathen but I, unlike Marv, definitely love their sandwiches and get annoyed that I can't have it on Sunday.
My point this entire time goes back to brands. Everyone has a brand and entities have brands. When they line up all is typically good. When they don't there is stress.
Ultimately this is why it's so important that our courts and legislative bodies are the brightest and most forward thinkers...because (in general) capitalism exists and reacts to our basic societal trends and current group think, ie current markets.
Group think has never been known for being forward thinking.
I'm babbling, again.
To answer your question, it doesn't matter what I think. I do know why they got let go (is Kluwe vindicated now?) and applaud all of them for standing up for what they believe in.
Until legislators pass laws that first amendment rights are protected in the private domain this will continue as SOP regardless if you believe in the cause or not.
Luckily there a millions of markets with millions of brand identities for majority of people.
But when did branding cross into social/political commentary? Nike is the frequent example of branding and up until the past decade or so, it didn't stray into any of those issues.
Good question. I have some thoughts on that, but they will need to wait for later. On my phone right now. I will say I suspect the roots go back much further than you'd think.
the woke mob is only a powerful bully, because big money wants it that way.
a generous gift from Wall St to DNC headquarters.
Here is where you are dead wrong.
Do you really think freedom of expression is “protected” by the first amendment?
News flash; it isn’t. Freedom of expression rests in the hearts and minds of the body politic, it is part of natural law. We believe it is an inalienable right. Finding it enshrined in our organic documents does not establish or protect the right, it recognizes what exists.
Levis is one more brick in the wall separating individuals from that natural right.
All this talk about “branding” in this context is a crock. Sey’s offense has zero to
do with Levis‘ brand. If we are talking about any brand, we are talking about a feature of the brand that means America and Uncle Sam. (“Murica“ for the elites around here). For whatever reason, the elites across academia, government, and multi-nationals have decided that freedom of expression is no longer an important part of the USA brand.
Similar threads
Hamline, DEI, and consumerism in higher ed
- anon_6hv78pr714xta
- The Water Cooler
