That's contrary to your job. For instance, lawyers at law firms can decide to quit their jobs if a law firm takes on a client that they do not like- but they do not have the right to, the night before a big filing, boycott work so the filing isn't done. 2/
You absolutely can take a stand and nothing requires you to work at a place that expresses things you do not like. But undermining your employer's expression should get you fired, and unless you are very contrite, it should make it difficult to find work in the industry. 3/
Netflix, The New York Times, First Avenue nightclub- they all make expressive choices. Who makes those choices? The management. Editors. Not employees. It's very prestigious to work in the content industry. The deal is your bosses make content decisions. 4/
What actually seems to have happened with the Chappelle thing is totally outrageous. He had been on the schedule awhile, and some employees decided to screw their bosses and attempted to undermine the show with a last minute protest. 5/
All these employees could have quit their jobs earlier. They could have, even, organized a protest earlier. But they chose the tactic they did because they were absolutely trying to screw their employer and prevent the show from going on. 6/
They failed, of course- the show did go on at an affiliated venue. But deliberately interfering with your employer's editorial choices is not protest, it's sabotage. And sabotaging your employer at the last minute is not part of any plausible conception of worker's rights. 7/
Eventually, the content industry is going to have to crack down, hard, on these people. Again, if this started happening in my field- law- if employees started periodically sabotaging work for cases/clients they didn't like- you'd see a massive response from the Bar. 8/
And to be clear- yes, there should be outlets for protest. For instance, there were employee demonstrations when Netflix picked up the Chappelle special. That's fine! That's protest! There's plenty of room in this world for legitimate protest. 9/
But people who don't understand that their bosses make content decisions and they don't (other than exercising a principled right to quit their jobs), shouldn't be working in the content industry. End/
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
it is underappreciated the extent to which the gun control movement's loss on concealed weapons permits before SCOTUS was due to bad program design. the "may issue" concealed weapon system was basically indefensible in court. 1/
first, background: states had two basic approaches to licensing people to carry guns. one is called "shall issue", which a majority of states use. Under shall issue, you meet some list of qualifications (age, background check, etc) and if you pass you get a permit. 2/
the second is "may issue", which 6 states used. Under may issue, it's up to the government (usually the local Sheriff) whether you can get a permit to carry a gun. 3/
I think one of the underrated causes of societal grief is moderates who don't police extremists in their own coalitions. Coalitions pressure moderates to always direct fire on the other side, but moderates are often the only people who can actually attach a cost to extremism. 1/
I was thinking about this with respect to the Highland Park shooting, although it applies to so many things. But let's take the gun issue for a second. The reality is that most gun owners are totally responsible people who either have a hobby or want to protect themselves. 2/
Many of them register their guns, take safety classes, get licenses, store their guns properly, and basically treat guns with the sort of care that we would want them to.
But they support a gun rights organization that defends the crazies. 3/
Here's my question to all these folks: is there such a thing as a sexually dimorphic species at all? Did we evolve from any sexually dimorphic species? Is sexual dimorphism a product of evolution that conferred an evolutionary advantage? 1/
Because THAT's where all this trendy theorizing breaks down. To say humans are not sexually dimorphic, you have to believe one of two things:
1. That humans are special and the rules of animals don't apply to us. 2. That, no sexually reproducing species is sexually dimorphic.
If you believe (1), well, now you really ARE in "wokism is a religion" territory. Because we're not special, created in God's image, etc. We're just another species and sexual reproduction works basically the same in humans as it does in any other sexually reproducing species.
This isn't a terrible op-ed, but Tribe's repeated use of the word "debunked" isn't really intellectually honest. This theory got 9 votes from the Supreme Court in Bush v. Palm Beach County in 2000! That's kind of the opposite of "debunked".
I think it's a stupid way of reading the Constitution, taking an over-literalist view of what the "legislature" means. And it raises questions such as "can a state legislature ignore a governor's veto?".
But you can't ignore arguments that have been made in 9-0 SCOTUS decisions.
I should add, ultimately, even if SCOTUS rejected "independent state legislature" in the North Carolina case, state legislatures still control the manner of selection of presidential electors. That's a ticking time-bomb no matter what SCOTUS does.
This seems right. I might add one unique thing about college football is so many valuable teams are in small TV markets. THAT'S what makes UCLA and USC so powerful- they are both fairly/very powerful college athletics brands AND big market teams.
If you wanted to go one level down from USC and UCLA, you COULD make a case for Washington, Stanford, California, ASU, and maybe Utah as both important and in big enough media markets to matter. And outside the Pac-12, perhaps UCF, Houston, Tulane, Miami, Boston College, etc.
And obviously huge brand name football factories like Alabama and Michigan can do just fine despite not being in major media markets.
But the worst situation is something like Washington State or NC State- not a big name football factory, not in a big media market.
The most fascinating part of the whole "woman"/"birthing persons"/"pregnant people" kerfuffle is that trans activists and lefties really thought that this would fly. The miscalculation is fascinating and telling. 1/
I have to credit Michael Hobbes- he does elegantly set forth the logic for the position in his thread- linguistic changes happen all the time, nobody complains about saying "flight attendant" rather than "stewardess", etc. 2/
The difference, though, should have been obvious. Previous linguistic changes either occurred mainly in domains liberals controlled (such as academia) or involved fairly small groups of people. 3/