What's so bad about not having democracy?

[Manfred Belheim]

"Obliged" and "allowed" aren't the same thing. You said allowed.

 

[Lexicus]

"Obliged" and "allowed" aren't the same thing. You said allowed.

Yes, their employer allows them to do that by employing them to do that.

Again, this has nothing to do with free speech. It's not a free speech issue that I don't have a job writing columns for some media outlet. It's not a free speech issue that lots of ignorant people who have no clue what they're talking about are employed to write columns for media outlets.

 

[BvBPL]

I have always strenuously supported the right of every man to his own opinion, however different that opinion might be to mine. He who denies another this right makes a slave of himself to his present opinion, because he precludes himself the right of changing it.

 

[Lexicus]

So, you'll agree that it is a grave offense against free speech that I cannot email my latest ramblings to the New York Times and have them published the next day on the front page?

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Yes, their employer allows them to do that by employing them to do that.

Again, this has nothing to do with free speech. It's not a free speech issue that I don't have a job writing columns for some media outlet. It's not a free speech issue that lots of ignorant people who have no clue what they're talking about are employed to write columns for media outlets.

Well it depends what you meant by "why are they allowed". If you meant "why do their employers allow..." then fair enough, but you must surely admit that that wasn't the only way of reading your question.

 

[BvBPL]

I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to make an ass of yourself.

 

[Lexicus]

The real quote is "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to be employed as a Respected Journalist so that your dumb opinion can be treated with all the importance it doesn't deserve."

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In order for that to be true, there would need to be such a thing as a "respected journalist" whose opinion is treated as important by anyone.

 

[Ryika]

I always think the same thing when I see opinion posts from feminists on the Guardian or similar places whose credentials seem to be that they're a feminist, and that publishing feminists who say the most outlandish things seems to be understood as a sign of progressiveness.

 

[Katie88]

I always think the same thing when I see opinion posts from feminists on the Guardian or similar places whose credentials seem to be that they're a feminist, and that publishing feminists who say the most outlandish things seems to be understood as a sign of progressiveness.

Pretty much. Their qualifications are measured in 'wokeness', and of course such articles generate a lot of clicks...

 

[BvBPL]

The real quote is "I may not agree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to be employed as a Respected Journalist so that your dumb opinion can be treated with all the importance it doesn't deserve."

Look buddy, all your ranting about this only serves to demonstrate your own ignorance. As is clearly demonstrated in the biography of the op-ed previously cited, Koptis is employed by Princeton Energy Advisors, not the Hill. The Hill has an open call for op-eds from interested contributors. However, while the Hill may be the publisher of these op-eds and while the Hill may even pay its contributors, that does not mean the op-ed contributors, including Koptis, are employees of the Hill. Instead, these contributors are, at most, independent contractors for the Hill.

The difference between an employee and an independent contractor come down to control. Generally, an employee is bound to be controlled by the employer within the scope of work to be performed whereas the independent contractor has the freedom to perform the work as he or she feels suited. An employer generally has financial responsibilities to his or her employee in terms of things like frequency of payment, deduction of payroll taxes, and providing the tools and supplies necessary for the employee to conduct the work. In contrast, an independent contractor is generally responsible for such incidentals and will collect the costs of those from the contracting party as part of the work contract. Finally, a relationship test can be applied wherein one may ask if the nature of the engagement between the parties appears to be of ongoing employment or if it is on a contractual basis. The IRS has a handy website where you can read about these tests.

While the nature of a relationship is not always clear, here it is obvious that Koptis was not the Hill’s employee. Koptis has only published two total articles on the Hill, both labeled as “Opinion.” Koptis is clearly identified as an employee of Princeton Energy Advisors, not of the Hill. Koptis certainly drafted his op-ed on the basis that the Hill might publish it, it was not written as part of an employment agreement with the Hill.

Nor is Koptis a journalist. A journalist is someone who is engaged in reporting the news. This is clearly not Koptis’s calling. He is a business manager. While he writes on energy concerns, the mere fact that he does write does not make him journalist.

In a democratic system, free speech favors the open expression of opinion despite the fact that someone may not be a journalist. Indeed, free speech encourages even MBAs to voice opinions. That democracies permit even that most odious of classes to engage in public discourse is a testament to the value of free speech.

I am blessed that we live in such enlightened times that, unlike St. Wilde, I need not face the pain off death to ensure the freedom of people to make asses of themselves.

 

[Lexicus]

Look buddy, all your ranting about this only serves to demonstrate your own ignorance.

Your response to my rants only serves to demonstrate your failure to grasp what's actually important here. The substance of my complaint is that media outlets should not be providing a platform for people to spread opinions that are based in pure ignorance about how the things they're talking about. Anyone who would write that the federal government is "spending money it doesn't have", doesn't know what they are talking about, and shouldn't be given any space in any media outlet to write about government finance. Similarly, I don't believe any media outlet should give space to anti-vaxxers to write about vaccines, climate change deniers to write about climate change, young-earth creationists to write about, well, anything scientific, and so on.

The difference between an employee and an independent contractor come down to control.

I am genuinely interested in how you arrived at the conclusion that a paragraph of discussion of the difference between independent contractors and employees is relevant here.

I always think the same thing when I see opinion posts from feminists on the Guardian or similar places whose credentials seem to be that they're a feminist, and that publishing feminists who say the most outlandish things seems to be understood as a sign of progressiveness.

Can you give a specific example of outlandish feminism that you found in the Guardian?

 

[Ryika]

Can you give a specific example of outlandish feminism that you found in the Guardian?

So I went to the guardian and had a quick look. This one should qualify: Watch out, manspreaders: the womanspreading fightback starts now

I'll go ahead and assume that you'll not think that article is very outlandish, because you'll probably be in ideological agreement with the things she says, but from my perspective it is the exact same thing. A completely unqualified person uses feminist theory - if it's not just conjecture in her own mind - to tell us something that she claims is true for society, then portrays a campaign of meaningless virtue signaling as "fighting back". Fighting back against whom? There is not a single person in the west, and I'm qulified to say that, who would be like: "Oey! Woman! Don't sit like that!", and this whole idea that women are told how to sit... well, might have been true 50 years ago, but in today's society? Maybe if your parents are rich.

It's nonsensical pseudo-activism that just creates more division between people over nothing.

 

[warpus]

Pretty much. Their qualifications are measured in 'wokeness', and of course such articles generate a lot of clicks...

The first time I ever heard of "woke" was when I saw this

It's just something 15 year olds say when they think they're being deep, right?

 

[Lexicus]

So I went to the guardian and had a quick look. This one should qualify: Watch out, manspreaders: the womanspreading fightback starts now

I'll go ahead and assume that you'll not think that article is very outlandish, because you'll probably be in ideological agreement with the things she says, but from my perspective it is the exact same thing. A completely unqualified person uses feminist theory - if it's not just conjecture in her own mind - to tell us something that she claims is true for society, then portrays a campaign of meaningless virtue signaling as "fighting back". Fighting back against whom? There is not a single person in the west, and I'm qulified to say that, who would be like: "Oey! Woman! Don't sit like that!", and this whole idea that women are told how to sit... well, might have been true 50 years ago, but in today's society? Maybe if your parents are rich.

It's nonsensical pseudo-activism that just creates more division between people over nothing.

How interesting. Tell me, do you think the author is just lying about having been told how to sit all her life? Just out of curiosity.

 

[Ryika]

How interesting. Tell me, do you think the author is just lying about having been told how to sit all her life? Just out of curiosity.

No, I think the author most likely comes from a very specific part of society and is ignorant of the fact that they're a privileged brat who has no actual problems to care about.

 

[BvBPL]

Your response to my rants only serves to demonstrate your failure to grasp what's actually important here. The substance of my complaint is that media outlets should not be providing a platform for people to spread opinions that are based in pure ignorance about how the things they're talking about. Anyone who would write that the federal government is "spending money it doesn't have", doesn't know what they are talking about, and shouldn't be given any space in any media outlet to write about government finance. Similarly, I don't believe any media outlet should give space to anti-vaxxers to write about vaccines, climate change deniers to write about climate change, young-earth creationists to write about, well, anything scientific, and so on.

Well, I’ve heard Singapore is a fine city when it comes to viewpoint censorship. You might find kindred minds there.

 

[Lexicus]

Well, I’ve heard Singapore is a fine city when it comes to viewpoint censorship. You might find kindred minds there.

I only wish I were surprised at your intellectual dishonesty.

 

[BvBPL]

I know. I can only keep trying to surprise you, but you're really on your toes here.

 

[Lexicus]

I know. I can only keep trying to surprise you, but you're really on your toes here.

Here, surprise me again. If I were to write an email to the New York Times containing my column about how President Obama initiated a government program designed to control human behavior by sending satellite signals through their dental implants, and the NYT declined to publish that column, would my viewpoints have been censored?