In this classic episode of “The Recruiters Lounge Podcast,” Jim Stroud and Karen Mattonen discuss the fine line between giving a client what they want verses obeying the law (and thus, protecting oneself from potential law suits.) Original air date: June 6, 2007
The woke cancel culture in society seeks to publicly shame or withdraw support from public figures because of unpopular opinions or offensive actions. In some cases, it might be appropriate to do so, yet increasingly it is a sign of mob culture that has gotten out of control. What happens when cancel culture enters the workplace and people are fired because someone is triggered by an alleged woke vs racism comment or an opinion expressed decades ago? Worse yet, what if you are cancelled at work for trying to help a cause that both parties agree with?
It may sound crazy but free speech is under attack and it is becoming more prevalent in the workspace. In this episode, Jim Stroud examines examples of cancel culture, why it persists and what it will take to finally end it. Tune in for a very special episode. Big thanks to Black History Quiz! Subscribe to the Black History Quiz Newsletter now!
When writing The Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx thought he was providing a road to utopia, but everywhere his ideas were tried, they resulted in catastrophe and mass murder. And there is no exception to that rule. Not the Soviet Union, not Eastern Europe, not China, not North Korea, not Vietnam, not Cuba, not Venezuela, not Bolivia, not Zimbabwe. Wherever Marxism goes, economic collapse, terror and famine follow. How is this relevant? Black Lives Matter co-founder – Patrisse Cullors admits that she and fellow founder – Alicia Graza are trained Marxists. I will speculate on the ramifications of that in this episode. | Special thanks to my sponsor – Black History Quiz! / Subscribe to the Black History Quiz Newslettertoday!
This episode of “The Recruiters Lounge” originally aired on February 20, 2008. The original description went like this…
“There are more women in managerial roles these days and more cases of sexual harassment being made. Coincidence? Gender Revenge? Or just a new plot for crude adult films? You decide!
I wonder… With unemployment going up, which groups are hurting the most? (You probably already know.) And finally, a debate, should CEOs be able to command mega-moolah if the company’s value consistently goes to the toilet?
Accept no imitations! You will only find this kind of exciting, action-packed rhetoric in – The Recruiters Lounge!”
This episode brought to you in part by Proactive Talent – https://proactivetalent.com.
For some people, just mentioning an impending “new world order” is enough to get your eyes rolling and I can agree that such claims can seem far-fetched, to say the least. Whether you believe these claims or dismiss them as far-out conspiracy theories perpetuated by Trump supporters, it is undeniable that there is a disturbing trend of censorship underway from big tech companies.
What bothers me about censorship is this.
If a news event is posted online and some authority takes it down, what is the appeal process to return it?
Who is in charge of what I can and cannot see? What makes them an authority on deciding what is true or not?
How can I fact check something for myself if the content is removed?
And if the content is removed, the authority who took it down can say all manner of things against it and I cannot fact check them. I’m forced to take their word for it and they themselves could be wrong.
Whether the censored information is true or not, it gives one-side an advantage. It could be argued, (insert authority here – Facebook, Twitter, etc.) took down the post because they could not handle the truth or, it goes against their agenda. The other side could argue that it was removed for the greater good and their viewpoint is undeniably true. It is a circular reason that can continue ad nauseum.
One very disturbing example of this is something BreitBart reported yesterday. I learned about it after someone forwarded me a video that I will share in a moment. For now, here is a quote…
Facebook has removed a video posted by Breitbart News earlier today, which was the top-performing Facebook post in the world Monday afternoon, of a press conference in D.C. held by the group America’s Frontline Doctors and organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots. The press conference featured Rep. Ralph Norman (R-SC) and frontline doctors sharing their views and opinions on coronavirus and the medical response to the pandemic. YouTube (which is owned by Google) and Twitter subsequently removed footage of the press conference as well.
The video accumulated over 17 million views during the eight hours it was hosted on Facebook, with over 185,000 concurrent viewers.
Further down the article, it reads…
“We’ve removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19,” a Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News. The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be “false information,” who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.
After Facebook decided to take it down, YouTube and Twitter removed it as well. This has me wondering, how do I know what Facebook et al have decided was for the greater good? The video is down so I cannot see who the doctors were nor hear for myself what they were saying. I scanned through some of the comments on the article and I found this one interesting.
To purposely prevent an exchange of information
about a matter of public health for the entire nation
seems to represent a new level of irresponsibility.
Perhaps these organizations will share the background
and qualifications of their censors who are designated
to be the controllers of information regarding a
national health discussion.
Those qualifications can then be compared to those
of the speakers who were censored.
This does point out again the urgent need to define the difference between a platform and a publisher.
Check out the video below (before it is removed, which would prove his point) as it goes into more detail concerning this matter. I think his points and personal outrage is valid. Whether the information is true or not, I despise censorship because it is a reminder that someone wants me to think as they do and not have my own opinion. It also invalidates a contrary opinion because relying on silence suggests the opinion cannot be defended once scrutinized.
Oh! And please leave a comment below? Thank you in advance.