Netflix Adds 'Artistic Expression' Policy, Says It Will Not 'Censor Specific Artists'
"If you’d find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you," the company tells employees.

Last year, Dave Chappelle's comedy special, The Closer, drew the ire of the transgender activist community, and Netflix became the target of protests. Ted Sarandos, co-CEO of the streaming giant, initially defended Chappelle's right to create offensive comedy but walked back his comments somewhat in an effort to appease "a group of employees who were definitely feeling pain and hurt."
This left matters somewhat unclear as to whether Netflix would still be inclined to feature artists like Chappelle, whose work involves upsetting people, or whether subjects that offend the sensibilities of progressive employees would be off-limits.
Thankfully, Netflix has just added an "Artistic Expression" policy to its well-publicized company culture memo. This policy states, in no uncertain terms, that the company will continue to platform provocative creators and ideas—and if employees have a problem with that, they should work elsewhere. Here is the policy:
Not everyone will like—or agree with—everything on our service. While every title is different, we approach them based on the same set of principles: we support the artistic expression of the creators we choose to work with; we program for a diversity of audiences and tastes; and we let viewers decide what's appropriate for them, versus having Netflix censor specific artists or voices.
As employees we support the principle that Netflix offers a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful. If you'd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you.
This is a great statement and should serve as a model for other companies that produce ideological content or are involved in the marketplace of ideas. Many of these firms hire substantial numbers of progressive young people in an attempt to eventually offer content that is relevant to this key demographic. But in recent years, a problem has emerged: Some subset of these millennial and Gen Z employees have adopted an elite college-campus mindset and expect their bosses to proactively eliminate speech that is emotionally upsetting to them, just as they had expected school administrators and professors to do.
Companies thus find themselves in the untenable position of trying to meet the expectations of a small but hostile—and militantly progressive—work force, even though these expectations inevitably work against the interests of millions of customers. (Among the general public, Dave Chappelle is extremely popular.)
Making clear to employees from the get-go that the company is not going to heed unreasonable employee demands relating to speech and expression should be considered a best practice moving forward. Setting these expectations upfront will deprive hostile employees of their sense of betrayal while reassuring customers that excessive outrage will never dictate content choices. If there's a single, voluntarily-adoptable corporate policy that could de-accelerate the culture war, it's probably this one.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The greater danger is probably that they just stop hiring them to begin with rather than censor them after the fact.
that may be what happens, but a statement as above is at least a "love it or leave it" sentiment that some of these babies need to hear.
The country has let the <<1% weirdos of society in the driver seat for far too long and someone needs to tell them to sit in the back, STFU, or get out of the car.
The best way to stop feeling pain and hurt is to simply stop feeling pain and hurt. This is not a broken rib. This is words. Grow up. The moment you stop letting words cause you to feel pain and hurt is the moment you will stop feeling pain and hurt, and get on with your life.
Of course, without having any pain and hurt to express, their sense of belonging to a powerful cilque will also vanish, causing a different kind of mental anguish. The way to deal with that is to grow up, get a life, become a human again.
Oh, How magnanimous!
Indeed. We allow you to live, even though you’re a loathsome Nazi.
I’d gladly kill an anonymous coward like you in self defence.
Neither you nor the losers you slide to have ever proven your ridiculous claims or refuted anything that I’ve said.
Proof. Fuck you.
The following points refute key elements of the holocaust with logic and science. This is because all stories creating the holocaust narrative defy logic and science.
There has been no objective forensic analysis at any supposed site. That means that there is no physical evidence. Any activity that demonstrates and shared evidence to refute the holocaust is a crime in every nation where it allegedly occurred.
The crucial event of the story is the cyanide gassing of millions of Jews. That never happened.
Jews wrote books illustrated with pictures of themselves shirtless dragging gassed bodies from the chambers to cremation ovens.
But cyanide is absorbed through the skin and NOBODY could have survived a single day of such activity much less collecting reparations into their old age reminiscing about it over a game of checkers.
And so it goes with every bullshit story. The facts prove otherwise.
Let’s not forget another old timey favourite.The story of Babi Yar is a popular lesson in Jewish schools described as the single largest event of the holocaust.
The lesson is that between 30,000 and 100,000 Jews were taken to a ravine in Ukraine where they were killed.
The story is told by one Jewish
survivor, Dina Pronicheva, an actress who testified that she was forced to strip naked and marched to the edge of the ravine. When the firing squad shot, she jumped into the ravine and played dead. After being covered by thousands of bodies and tons of earth she dug herself out, unscathed, when the coast was clear and escaped to tell the story.
She is apparently the only person in history to successfully perform a matrix bullet dodge at a firing squad. The soldier aiming point blank at her never noticed her escape. Never walked a few steps to the edge of the ravine to finish her off.
They were stripped naked to leave no evidence. Naked she had no tools to dig herself out from under 30,000 bodies and tons of dirt.
Only after the deed was done, the nazis realized that so many bullet ridden bodies were evidence. Oops, rookie move. So they brought more Jews and millions of cubic feet of firewood to dig them up, cremate them on gravestones and scatter their ashes in surrounding fields.
There has been no forensic investigation at the site. None of the bullets allegedly burned with the bodies have been recovered. Not one shred of physical evidence of this has ever been found.
There are aerial photographs of the area at the time but they don’t show any evidence of the narrative, no people, no equipment, no firewood, no moved earth, no tracks of any kind.
Simply stating these facts is a crime in Ukraine where the Babi Yar narrative is taught in school
Have you ever heard of the Bletchley park decrypts of the famous German enigma machines? It was credited for turning the tide of the war as allies knew what military actions the Germans were planning.
Only released in the 1980s those translated messages included prison camp information, deaths, transfers and requests for medicines to treat illnesses. The numbers of dead don’t support the holocaust narrative of which there was also no mention of.
Are you willingly performing the mental gymnastics required to believe, as the story goes, that Germans were communicating in code about prison camps while talking plainly about their military actions with their top secret enigma machines?
The numbers of dead from German enigma decrypts does align with Red Cross numbers.
The Red Cross regularly visited all prison camps. It was their job to report the cause of all deaths. They recorded a grand total of 271,000 among all camps for the entire war. It is a matter of record.
Are you performing the mental gymnastics required to believe that the Red Cross were so incompetent that they were completely unaware of 95% or 5,629,000 deaths?
Zyklon B is an off the shelf insecticide used among other places in Prison camps to delouse clothing and bedding to save lives by preventing deadly typhus. The system used for years before the war employed heating to release cyanide gas, fans to circulate the gas and more to exhaust the chambers to make the de loused articles safe to handle.
Pictures of this equipment and the small de lousing buildings with clothing racks still exist in Prison camps. But no evidence of any gas delivery system has ever been found in the shower houses where the bullshit holocaust allegedly occurred. In fact, the story has changed to that they just threw the heat activated pellets onto the cold drainless floors in rooms full of people.
Such an inefficient method would have taken too long to kill the required number of Jews. The pellets couldn’t be spread evenly in rooms full of people. The cold drainless floors would have delayed the release of cyanide from the pellets that people would have swept away from themselves. Any dead would have released all their bodily fluids and their bodies covering the pellets. Vomit would have been added to the floor prior to entering such a room.
According to Martin Gilbert in his book, Holocaust Journey, the gas chambers at Treblinka utilized carbon monoxide from diesel engines. At the Nuremberg trial of the Nazi war criminals, the American government charged that the Jews were murdered at Treblinka in “steam chambers,” not gas chambers.
Gasoline engine exhaust contains about ten times the carbon monoxide than diesel. Diesel exhaust is relatively safe. Even if the Diesel engines were running at their maximum of 500 ppm, death would take several hours. Far too long to support the narrative.
If Germans had used gas engines, death would have been in a few minutes. But in the holocaust narrative for treblinka diesel was used even though they had plenty of gas for their tanks. Nuremberg still recorded that they were “steam chambers”.
Which stupid lie is more believable? You have to perform some feeble mental gymnastics to buy that.
Jews had been publicly claiming a holocaust of 6 million Jews in various nations no less than 166 times between 1900 and 1945. Only for sympathy to raise money and coerce sympathy. Like the wastes of skin who fake cancer on go fund me pages.
The story of gassing Jews began as British propaganda to turn popular opinion against Germany. It was inspired to draw attention away from Jewish Bolshevik war crimes in Russia because that would work against allied propaganda. It also served global Jewish interests to create undeserved sympathy for Jews who had publicly organized boycotts of Germany to drive Germany to war.
There is a documented letter from the head of British propaganda to the head of the war office recommending that they cease the “gassing Jews“ propaganda because there was no evidence for it and if found out would work against their propaganda efforts.
The only thing the bullshit holocaust narrative has in common with WW2 is that they were both the creation of Jews.
These Jewish leaders are admitting it.. Are they lying?
“We Jews are going to bring a war on Germany”.
David A Brown, national chairman, united Jewish campaign, 1934.
“The Israeli people around the world declare economic and financial war against Germany …holy war against Hitlers people”
Chaim Weismann, the Zionist leader, 8 September 1939, Jewish chronicle.
The Toronto evening telegram of 26 February 1940 quoted rabbi Maurice l. Perlzweig of the world Jewish Congress as telling a Canadian audience that” The world Jewish Congress has been at war with Germany for seven years”.
wow.
What a turd you are.
What does that make you who can’t refute a word I say?
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/by4-physical-evidence/
The nazis took care to destroy all evidence, burning corpes to ash and pulverizing bones, much of which was washed away over the decades.
https://www.hdot.org/debunking-denial/by4-physical-evidence/
The nazis took care to destroy all evidence, burning corpes to ash and pulverizing bones, much of which was washed away over the decades.
The nazis took care to destroy all evidence, burning corpes to ash and pulverizing bones, much of which was washed away over the decades.
"The corpses were cremated on funeral pyres, built on iron rails. Firewood was stacked, then the corpses were placed on this petrol soaked material. When the pyres had burned down, the special command of prisoners had to collect the remaining bones which were pulverized with tombstones from the Jewish cemetery. Finally the ashes were inspected in order to collect any remaining silver and gold (these men were called "Goldsucher" ("Gold diggers")." - http://www.deathcamps.org/occupation/babi%20yar.html
Here's some eyewitness testimony. Commanding officer of Sonderkommando 4a, SS-Standartenführer Paul Blobel, on 18 June 1947:
"During my visit in August I myself witnessed the burning of corpses in a mass grave near Kiew. This grave was approximately 55 metres long, 3 m wide and 2.5 m deep. After the cover had been removed, the corpses were covered with inflammable materials and set on fire. About two days passed before the fire had burned down to the bottom of the trench. Afterwards the grave was filled in and all traces thereby virtually obliterated. Because of the advance of the front it was not possible to destroy the mass graves located in the South and East which had resulted from execution by the task groups." - https://euromaidanpress.com/2019/10/02/jewish-survivors-of-babi-yar-holocaust-massacre-recall-events-reconstruct-exact-shooting-location-ukraine-kyiv/
The other mass graves were also destroyed see references above.
Now there a diversity policy that makes sense.
No shit. Good to see their board found the root cause of the downtrend and applied a fix. And (gasp!) it wasn’t that hard was it? The entitled SjW’s who think the world owes them a bedtime story with their preferred pronouns can get fucked and join reality.
Ugh. This is exactly the wrong move.
Netflix's speech policy should be less Dave Chappelle, and more Reason contributor Noah Berlatsky.
#LibertariansAgainstHateSpeech
Sure. Using your link we find he opposes neo nazi's 'speaking' (like we allowed in 'Skokie') but then adopts their culture to the max, i.e. he subscribes to "The best way to preserve lizards is not to preserve hawks". Now use Germany instead of lizards and Jews instead of Hawks and whoops! I didn't mean that! You are misquoting me. No really. I 'll be a really really good dictator and arbiter of 'freedom of expression'.
https://twitter.com/AshleyRParker/status/1525191777887592448?t=DYDE3t8602Wfch6sK9gtUQ&s=19
Biden's attempt to reappropriate "MAGA" and "ultra MAGA" was the result of a six-month research effort by liberal groups. My latest w @michaelscherer.
[Link]
Dont know if thats true but that would be quintessential DNC to focus group something like this with the intent of making it a meme only for it to be so hilariously cringe that it is only meme'd on.
The
Left
Can't
Meme
And they prove it.everyday.
MF's can't get a marketing and PR firm to focus group something that 12 year olds can throw out without even thinking about it.
In case you don't speak this new brand of Republican vernacular:
Let's go Brandon = Fuck Joe Biden
Make America Great Again = Exterminate all the brown people
Make America Great Again = Exterminate all the brown people
No, that's not fair. They don't want to exterminate the brown people. They do, however, find them convenient scapegoats.
Afternoon you two race-baiting "dogwhistle" detectors.
The only people actually hating on brown folks are your bosses. The lily-white optimates of the DNC who swear that you're the "Browns" representatives, but are the ones guilty for slavery, Jim Crow, the Black Codes, the KKK, segregation, redlining, creating ghettoes and aborting them like weeds.
Do you think that Team Red has scapegoated foreigners?
No.
I do think Team Blue has scapegoated Team Red for the things Team Blue has done - slavery, secession, Jim Crow, segregation, voter suppression, KKK, stuff like that.
Really? So when Trump and others repeatedly claim that "foreigners are taken our jerbz!", you don't think that this is a type of scapegoating?
That's a dramatic mischaracterization of you lefties war on the working classes, Jeff.
Is that so?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/03/06/trump-warns-gop-on-immigration-theyre-taking-your-jobs/
Donald Trump on Thursday warned Republicans against passing comprehensive immigration reform, saying immigrants will vote en masse for Democrats and are stealing Americans' jobs.
"Of those 11 million potential voters, which will go to 30 million in the not too distant future, you will not get any of those votes," Trump told the conservative gathering known as CPAC in suburban Washington.
Trump added: "You better be smart. They’re taking your jobs. You better be careful."
He's right, but how is this scapegoating? A scapegoat is one that bears the blame for others. They're actually doing this.
You can be mad that he's pointing this out, but it's not scapegoating.
So, blaming all Mexicans for "stealing jobs" when only a few might be doing so, is not scapegoating?
Nobody blamed "all Mexicans", you dishonest fuck.
They’re taking your jobs.
That's not "all Mexicans", you dishonest fuck.
Lying Jeffy lies. It’s what he does.
You’re a bigoted liar Pedo Jeffy. You just can help yourself.
Here's another one:
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/donald-trump-storms-phoenix-119989
“I love the Mexican people … I respect Mexico … but the problem we have is that their leaders are much sharper, smarter and more cunning than our leaders, and they’re killing us at the border,” said Trump, in front of a giant American flag at the Saturday afternoon rally at the Phoenix convention center. He added, “They’re taking our jobs. They’re taking our manufacturing jobs. They’re taking our money. They’re killing us.”
Again, he's right, and how is this scapegoating? As I said, the scapegoat is someone innocent that bears the blame for others. They're actually doing this.
You can be mad that he's pointing this out, but it's not scapegoating.
No, scapegoating is casting *disproportionate* or *undeserved* blame on a person or a group for what only a few might have done, or not at all.
Sure, a few Mexicans might have stolen the jobs of a few Americans. That doesn't justify casting wide aspersions on all of them as "stealing jobs". That is scapegoating.
I love how you started at "nobody is scapegoating", and now you are at the point of "sure they scapegoated, but it's not really scapegoating and it's totally true anyway".
Nope, I'm still at "nobody is scapegoating". Time to stop lying, Jeff.
Also:
scapegoat
noun [ C ]
UK /ˈskeɪp.ɡəʊt/ US /ˈskeɪp.ɡoʊt/
a person who is blamed for something that someone else has done:
someone who is blamed or punished for another’s faults or actions:
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/scapegoat
I see. So blaming all Mexicans for "stealing jobs" when only a few might have done so, that would be scapegoating the innocent Mexicans for what only the small minority have done, then, right? According to your definition?
Are all Mexicans trying to illegally immigrate into the US, Jeff?
Are all Mexicans trying to steal jobs?
You are flailing. Once again you know I'm right and you can't admit it.
Bottom line, Trump & Co. blame wide swaths of people for the problematic behavior of just a few. That is scapegoating. It casts blame on those who are innocent.
Bottom line, Trump & Co. didn't blame wide swaths of people for the problematic behavior of just a few. He blamed the illegals specifically who were doing just that. That isn't scapegoating.
What you're doing, as usual, is twisting words, inventing your own definitions, and lying. Mostly lying.
You're not famous here as "Lying Jeffy" for nothing.
Did every illegal immigrant Mexican steal someone's job?
You are endorsing collective guilt.
Nope. You’re just lying.
Referring to outsourcing, yes, Mexico is taking our jobs. The US has worked hard, for years, to send all jobs out of the country. Trump just, you know, noticed it.
So Jeffy, define ‘a few’.
Are all Mexicans trying to steal jobs
All Mexicans illegally immigrating to the US WILL steal jobs.
Because they are not here legally and job any of them gets is one that a legal resident could have taken.
You are really fortunate that the Lord does not really strike liars with lightning. At this point you would be charred and crispy.
Are foreigners not coming in and displacing at least some American workers?
I don't have to think that that is a bad thing to acknowledge that it is happening.
Nobody's scapegoating foreigners.
They're disgusted that Team Blue is using illegal migrants as weapons in the economic war against the working classes. And when they're not doing that they're using them as underpaid slave labour.
The lie that the Democrat's bad behavior isn't the problem, that the real problem is working class xenophobia, is grotesque.
They're disgusted that Team Blue is using illegal migrants as weapons in the economic war against the working classes.
How specifically is Team Blue "using illegal migrants as weapons in the economic war against the working classes"? Be specific here.
Sure. You're bussing illegal immigrants into the country who don't get healthcare insurance, minimum wage, employee rights and don't need a $5000 haircutting license in order to have a shop, or pay taxes on earnings. The plebs can't compete.
If Democrats actually weren't waging war, they'd be looking to up legal immigration. Not greyzone illegals.
Of course you now this, but you're a paid shill who has to pretend.
You're bussing illegal immigrants into the country
Where are these buses, and who precisely is doing all of this bussing?
You are claiming that Team Blue has a deliberate, coordinated strategy to "wage war against the working classes" via illegal immigration, no? Why would they do this? This sounds cartoonishly evil.
https://news.yahoo.com/biden-administration-quietly-flies-illegal-140450591.html
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/biden-dumping-illegal-migrants-around-the-nation-without-notice/ar-AALbp7T
You knew this. You're such a dishonest moron.
Your articles say nothing about anyone deliberately bussing migrants *into* the country. Those articles about resettling migrants with sponsors once the migrants have already entered the nation.
Again, where are the buses, and who is deliberately bussing migrants *into the nation*?
That's pretty disingenuous chemjeff.
Here's one group:
https://apnews.com/article/joe-biden-mexico-coronavirus-pandemic-el-paso-immigration-ca4f1ed0bc6ce8ff72484d8c70b08a02
"The asylum-seekers tested negative for COVID-19 in Mexico and were taken to San Diego hotels to quarantine before they take a plane or bus to their final destinations in the U.S., said Michael Hopkins, chief executive officer of Jewish Family Service of San Diego, which is playing a critical support role. "
And this is another example of you starting from the conclusion that I'm wrong, and then trying to 'prove' it.
You cannot prove your claim, so you try to bullshit the readers by posting 'proof' which has nothing to do with the claim that you stated, but is instead only tangentially related to your claim.
You have to try to pull that kind of stunt, though, because you do in fact loathe me. And you are unable to bring yourself to publicly agree with me or acknowledge when I have a point. That is too humiliating to you. So you have to try to trick and bullshit people with your garbage arguments.
"The asylum-seekers
So, Biden is permitting asylum seekers, who have already traveled to the border on their own without the help of this imaginary fleet of buses, to make their case for asylum pursuant to US law and international treaty, which they were always entitled to do from the 1950s all the way up to 2019 when Trump instituted his Remain In Mexico plan. So, that's it? That's the deliberate plan to "wage war on the working classes" - by following the law?
"You cannot prove your claim, so you try to bullshit the readers by posting 'proof' which has nothing to do with the claim that you stated, but is instead only tangentially related to your claim."
Who do you imagine you're tricking?
I gave you three links that explicitly prove what I said. People can read our previous posts. They can click on the links. They can see that you're lying.
Is your boss at the fifty-cent factory checking your work? Is that why you're dissembling so frantically today?
Pretty pathetic, Jeff.
None of your links mention any buses transporting migrants INTO the country, let alone as a part of some deliberate Team Blue plot to "wage war on the working classes". You posted some links which are only tangentially related to the issue at hand but don't prove your claim, hoping no one will notice. In other words, you pulled a Jesse.
And I can tell that you think you're losing again, as you break out the insult factory once more.
"None of your links mention any buses transporting migrants INTO the country"
The last one does you lying fuck, and the first two answer your question about "'Where are these buses, and who precisely is doing all of this bussing?"
Nope, sorry. No buses mentioned in any of your articles.
But I just want to be clear about this. You believe that permitting asylum seekers to actually invoke their rights that they are entitled to under US law and international treaty, that constitutes a deliberate plot by Team Blue to wage war against the working classes? That is your argument here?
Oh, shit. Mostly airplanes and only a few buses mentioned. That totally invalidates everything. You win, Lying Jeffy.
You refuse to address the larger point. You think that permitting asylum seekers to invoke their rights under US law and international treaty constitutes "waging war against the working classes"? AND that the entire effort of transporting migrants from their home country to the border, and INTO the country, the entire thing is deliberately orchestrated and planned by Team Blue in order to wage this war?
What is your purported rationale for them to do this? This is just cartoonishly evil behavior you are imputing onto them. A good rule of thumb is that if your argument requires your opponents to be caricatures of cartoon villains, then your argument is wrong.
The nursing situation has been widely reported for months you sealioning asshole.
Nobody's scapegoating foreigners.
Would you not consider this to be a type of scapegoating?
https://www.npr.org/2021/08/10/1026178171/republicans-migrants-covid-19-surges
No. Because pretty clear correlation shows the illegals were responsible for the Covid uptick.
You're so dishonest, Jeff.
When you're losing an argument, you throw out insults. I get it.
I've always insulted you because I don't respect you. I think you're vile and an active force for evil. I loathe you to be quite honest.
That's not going to change.
Oh I know you loathe me. Which is why your arguments against me are emotional and not rational. You start from the conclusion that I'm wrong, and then try to work your way backwards to attempting to 'prove' it. I enjoy pointing out how your arguments are garbage.
Lol. It's easy to dissemble your arguments rationally because they are always lies. I can't think of one instance where you have been honest.
I can't think of one instance where you have been honest.
Which is itself a lie, you know it, because, as I said, you operate from a basis of emotional loathing, not rational argument, when it comes to me.
Pretty sure my loathing of you is logical. Almost everyone else here hates you too.
Hey fatfuck, how is your leveraged buyout of NAMBLA proceeding?
We ALL loath you Jeffy.
Have you considered posting on Salon?
Where is the evidence that migrants were the *cause* of the observed increased cases of COVID? Correlation is not causation.
Here's the justification:
https://www.foxnews.com/media/texas-abbott-executive-order-biden-covid
Your article is the very definition of scapegoating. Abbott took one anecdote of sick migrants at a Whataburger and he used that anecdote to generalize about all of them "spreading COVID everywhere" when in fact it was about lack of vaccination, and lack of following public health measures generally, which caused the spread of COVID, irregardless of whether the sick people were migrants or not.
Can you prove or back up that statement?
Which one?
This: "Abbott took one anecdote of sick migrants at a Whataburger and he used that anecdote to generalize about all of them "spreading COVID everywhere" when in fact it was about lack of vaccination"
Because the DHS is saying the same thing as Abbott:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10034659/DHS-Secretary-Alejandro-Mayorkas-admits-1-5-migrants-illness.html
But that article doesn't prove your claim either.
You are trying to claim that the surge in COVID in Texas in Summer 2021 was CAUSED by illegal immigrants, right?
Well, simply observing that a certain proportion of migrants are themselves sick doesn't prove that cases rose because of the migrants. If, for example, 20% of the migrants were sick, but, say, 30% of native Texans were already sick, then obviously the migrants didn't cause the Texans to already be sick. There had to be some other cause. If you go here:
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/us/texas
you'll see that in late summer 2021, the positivity rate in Texas was about 18-19%. Which is about the same as what your article cited about the migrants. So it seems like a stretch to claim that the migrants are what CAUSED Texans to get sick. Everyone was more or less equally sick, both native Texans and migrants.
Oh, I see you didn't address this one, but you had plenty of time to address the other questions.
That is because yes, I am right, the migrants did not CAUSE the COVID surge in late summer of 2021, Abbott totally scapegoated them with his executive order.
Cool your jets, Lying Jeffy. I just had supper. Unlike you I'm not paid to be here. I can't refute you're bullshit 24/7, but I'll get to it now.
What you've just done is tried to pretend that John Hopkins Texas data includes illegals. It doesn't, as they don't show up at hospitals and don't get tested. Also you've just restricted the period to Summer 2021 that didn't cover the whole surge.
You know who did test illegals? Homeland security. Furthermore the DHS HS does not have the capacity to test every individual arriving at the southern border. So that's just a sampling.
Anyway, what did the director say?
'What I didn't expect was the tragic rise of the delta variant,' the secretary said at the virtual Immigration Law and Policy Conference Monday afternoon. 'And we took a step back by reason of that. I did not expect to be in late September where we are.'
'We are confronted with a population of people that, as a general matter, that have a rate of illness of approximately 20%.'
'When one is speaking of 7,000 or 7,500 people encountered at the border every day, if one takes a look at that the system, it is not built for that in a Covid environment where isolation is required,'
Time to stop lying, Jeffy.
And this is you generating pettifoggery to distract from the larger argument, because you know you have lost.
To review: Abbott and you claim that illegal migrants CAUSED the surge of COVID in places like Texas in late summer 2021, and his 'proof' is that he cited some anecdote about sick migrants at a Whataburger. That is from YOUR Fox News link. I pointed to actual statistical data which showed that the COVID positivity rate in Texas at that time was about the same as, again, what YOUR link said about the rate was among the illegal migrants.
What you've just done is tried to pretend that John Hopkins Texas data includes illegals. It doesn't, as they don't show up at hospitals and don't get tested.
Actually, that makes my case even stronger. If the Johns Hopkins data demonstrates that the positivity rate in Texas was 18-19% *excluding* illegal migrants, and the DHS says that the positivity rate among illegal migrants was about 20%, then how can sick migrants, by migrating, CAUSE the COVID infection rate to be... no higher than it ALREADY WAS? They can't. It makes no logical sense.
You are wrong, Abbott was wrong, he scapegoated illegal migrants as causing COVID infections in the state when that was not the case, he used the power of the state to clamp down on a group that *he already was planning to clamp down on*, but now with a slightly more defensible pretext - stopping COVID infection - that he invented out of whole cloth in order to justify it. That is classic scapegoating, and I am not at all surprised that you defend it.
Team Red does this sort of thing all the time. They will use one-off anecdotes to justify sweeping courses of action, that they were going to take ANYWAY, but using these anecdotes to generate emotional reactions as additional justification for their actions.
Remember the murder of Mollie Tibbetts? A cute Iowa coed was murdered by an illegal immigrant in 2018. It was a very sad story, but of course Team Red seized upon it to push through more immigration restrictionist crap. It did not matter what the statistical reality was of the likelihood of being murdered by an illegal immigrant (it is next to zero), that one anecdote was proof enough that the government had to act to do more to protect America from the scourge of illegal immigrant murderers. Truth is, Team Red of course wanted to do more to keep those filthy illegals out of the country anyway; using Mollie Tibbetts' sad story of course gave them more political ammunition to do so. Which was the only point.
It is the same story here. Some sick Mexicans at a Whataburger spread COVID in some Texas town. That anecdote is enough to justify sweeping government overreaction by Greg Abbott to crack down on illegal immigration in Texas. Never mind that the COVID rate among the migrants and among the native-born population was about the same at the time, never mind that Team Red in general doesn't think that COVID is a big deal in the first place, if they can use fake COVID hysteria to push for more immigration restrictionist policies, they will do it.
It is sick and disgusting and it is a large reason why so many people, who would otherwise look favorably to Team Red's economic policies, are so turned off by what Team Red has become. Because no amount of advocacy for tax cuts can justify treating people like this.
Wait, is chemjeff actually pretending that Abbott was only talking about sick migrants at Whataburger? It looks to me like he's taking one example and making it into the whole issue.
You're right that he's a lying jeff.
From ML's Fox News link:
"What happened yesterday in La Joya, Texas -- where it was learned that migrants had been released by Border Patrol… were found in a Whataburger with extreme signs of illness. They themselves said they had COVID-19. There was a hotel full of people with COVID-19," he recounted.
"That's exactly why I issued this executive order."
That is the only tangible evidence Abbott gave in favor of his executive order. That's it.
He used this flimsy anecdotal pretext to clamp down on illegal migrants, which he was going to do anyway, just that COVID gave him a more plausible facade of a reason to do so.
Do you mean illegals?
And let's get back to the big picture here. In the article that you presented, Abbott did not present any statistical evidence or try to make any logical claim at all about who was spreading COVID to whom. All he did was cite an anecdote about a group of migrants at a Whataburger supposedly spreading COVID. Based on YOUR article that you cited, that was the basis for his executive order. That is classic scapegoating.
And now you pretend that the figures Mayorkas presented didn't happen because Abbott didn't pass out pdf's of the data when he referenced them.
Look at how this fatfuck groomer sophist is threadshittimg again. Spewing his democrat lies.
Do you think a modern-day Democrat is no different than a Democrat from the 1850s?
Do you think a modern-day Republican is no different than a Republican from the 1850s?
Do you think that the Democratic party shouldn't bear responsibility for it's sins?
It's okay that you Democrats supported slavery and Jim Crow, fought the Indian Wars and sent them on the Trail of Tears, locked the Japanese in camps and filibustered the Civil Rights act, because you're suddenly the good guys now?
You didn't answer the questions.
Do you think a modern-day Democrat is no different than a Democrat from the 1850s?
Do you think a modern-day Republican is no different than a Republican from the 1850s?
I think modern Democrats are even eviler than their thoroughly evil 1850's counterparts, and the modern Republicans are somewhat stupider.
That answers your question precisely, don't pretend that it doesn't.
Now answer mine.
Do you think that the Democratic party shouldn't bear responsibility for it's sins?
It's okay that you Democrats supported slavery and Jim Crow, fought the Indian Wars and sent them on the Trail of Tears, locked the Japanese in camps and filibustered the Civil Rights act, because you're suddenly the good guys now?
Why do you think modern Democrats are more evil, and why do you think modern Republicans are more stupid?
Do you think that the Democratic party shouldn't bear responsibility for it's sins?
I think the Democratic Party of the 1850s should bear responsibility for the sins of the Democratic Party of the 1850s. It is absurd to think that the Democratic Party of today is no different than the Democratic Party of the 1850s. Same with the Republican Party, or with any other organization. Unless you think the sins of the past are a perpetual and irrevocable stain forever and ever. IF that is the case, should we regard Ford Motor Co. as forever anti-Semitic because Henry Ford was a raging anti-Semite? Should we regard Volkswagens as forever fascist because it was started by literal Nazis in the 1930s?
Unless you think the sins of the past are a perpetual and irrevocable stain forever and ever."
This was exactly your argument about the 2020 riots, and is the impetus behind CRT.
This was exactly your argument about the 2020 riots
Umm, what?
When the Democrats were burning Minneapolis, Portland and DC, that was your defense at the time. Don't pretend we can't remember a year and a half ago.
What exactly was my supposed defense again?
Three posts up, Jeffy.
That's not what I wrote.
But if you can find evidence to the contrary, let's see it.
And besides, this whataboutism loses sight of the main point. If the Democratic Party of today must bear the sins of the Democratic Party for supporting slavery in the 1850's, then should the same standard apply for every other institution? Is the Volkswagen company irredeemibly fascist because they were started by literal Nazis?
You didn't write this, Jeffy? "Unless you think the sins of the past are a perpetual and irrevocable stain forever and ever"
I literally copied and pasted it from your post.
"Is the Volkswagen company irredeemibly fascist because they were started by literal Nazis?"
I have no qualms about answering this (starts with a "y"), but because you're disingenuous I want you to answer me this first.
What were you saying here about the subject when all the statues were being torn down? Be honest, because I found a little reminder if you can't be.
I said lots of things about statues. I personally don't think there should be publicly-funded statues of traitors on public lands. I don't think that is a particularly controversial statement.
Now do answer my question.
So you do think the sins of the past are a perpetual and irrevocable stain forever and ever, contrary to your earlier statement.
And yes. Volkswagen was started by a Nazi labour organization and used slave labour during the war. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_companies_involved_in_the_Holocaust
It should have been broken up like IG Farben.
And it still should. The same with Hugo Boss.
So you do think the sins of the past are a perpetual and irrevocable stain forever and ever, contrary to your earlier statement.
Not for an ORGANIZATION. An organization is made up of PEOPLE. It's the PEOPLE participating in an organization that give it its direction and purpose. People come and go, and as time elapses, the organization changes. ANY organization that existed in 1850 is not the same as it is today. That goes for political parties, companies, governments, anything. Because the people are all different.
The Volkswagen company of 2022 is not the same as the Volkswagen company of 1934. I am quite aware of the very terrible history of Volkswagen, which is why I brought it up. And if it were still run by Nazis using slave labor, I would say absolutely it should be boycotted, broken up, penalized out of existence. But it's not. It is absurd to think that the people working in the Volkswagen company in 2022 bear any moral culpability for what Nazis did 90 years ago. Because the people running Volkswagen today are NOT Nazis and they are NOT using slave labor (to the best of my knowledge, anyway).
That is a different situation than when dealing with individuals, particularly dead historical figures. Jefferson Davis was a traitor, and no additional amount of time can elapse which would make Jefferson Davis not a traitor. He is not going to somehow change into something else in which his reputation will be redeemed.
But this is all a giant distraction, which was your whole point. Inject confusion into the discussion.
No member of the Democratic Party, or the Republican Party, or any party, bears any moral culpability whatsoever for what long dead individuals did a hundred years ago who also happened to be members of the same party. To claim otherwise is absurd guilt by association.
"It is absurd to think that the Democratic Party of today is no different than the Democratic Party of the 1850s. "
Weird how the DNC is the ONLY institution progressives feel that way over.
Answer his question you fat piece of shit.
It's okay that...
None of that is "okay". They were all wrong at the time and they continue to be wrong.
Do you support the Civil Rights Act of 1965?
Yes. 100%.
Why?
(Please say you think showing ID is a poll tax)
Also the act was '64, not '65
The Civil Rights Act is different than the Voting Rights Act.
(And yes it was in 1964, not 1965.)
Well, the reason I ask is that many libertarians don't support it, because it infringes on freedom of association. But you don't think that is a concern? Why not?
I know that the Civil Rights Act is different than the Voting Rights Act. That's why I said "Please say you think showing ID is a poll tax", because that's part of the Voting Rights Act.
Also, because I don't think that the Civil Rights Act infringes on freedom of association.
Also, because I don't think that the Civil Rights Act infringes on freedom of association.
Well, it definitely does. It forbids a business from refusing to serve black customers. Shouldn't the business owner be free to associate, or refuse to associate, with whomever he/she chooses? That is the argument anyway.
But, if you don't think that is an infringement of freedom of association, then are you in favor of forbidding a business from refusing to serve gay customers?
"then are you in favor of forbidding a business from refusing to serve gay customers?"
Yes.
If a gay customer goes to a halal butcher and asks for a lamb shank or a bakery and asks for a cake, he shouldn't be denied service.
However, if he demands something that they don't normally supply, a pork chop from the butcher, and a gay wedding cake from the baker, he can go fuck himself.
So a baker who normally makes wedding cakes, you would use the government to compel that baker to bake a wedding cake for a gay wedding?
No.
If a bakery makes straight wedding cakes they make straight wedding cakes. If the poof picks an off-the-shelf straight wedding cake that's one thing. The baker should sell it.
If he demands a special gay cake, fuck him.
If Johnny Bible-Banger goes to some gay, furry, bdsm bakery who specializes in penis-shaped cakes and buys the pink 3 footer, they should sell it to him. But if he demands a bible shaped Christian cake with bible verses on it, they can tell him to fuck off too.
This was beautiful, even only reading half of it.
I think it might actually be more fun to watch him get worked like one of those inflatable punching balls on a rubber band when I don't have to listen to him while it happens.
ML is full of dishonest arguments, isn't he?
Haha, Jeff. You know who he's talking about. Everyone hates you, man.
He was clearly referring to you.
Again you are not honest. You start from the premise that I'm wrong, and then work your way backwards to try to justify it. You concoct shady arguments, throw sand in the air to sow confusion, use all sorts of tricks, but the result is always the same. Your arguments fall apart and anyone with a brain sees that.
You claim that there is some deliberate organized effort to "wage war on the working class" by Team Blue to deliberately bring busloads of migrants to this country. I'm quite certain that you believe this in your heart. But you cannot prove it. Your linked articles don't prove shit. Where's your proof of this conspiracy? It doesn't exist. But you won't back down. You absolutely will not challenge the idea that your belief that the Democratic Party is waging war against the working classes via illegal immigration is an emotional opinion rather than a statement of objective fact. Because that is too hard for you to do psychically. Team Blue MUST be the caricature of a cartoon villain that you have concocted in your mind.
You claim absurdly that Team Red doesn't scapegoat foreigners. When I present two obvious examples of when they did in the recent past, you cannot accept it. You engage in semantic arguments, you try to change the subject, but you won't back down from defending Team Red here despite their despicable behavior. Because it is axiomatic in your mind that I must be wrong. Also because since Team Blue is cartoonishly evil in your mind, you MUST defend Team Red as the savior from the Team Blue hellscape they would inflict upon us all.
You do this all the time. YOU are the fifty-center here, not me, in service of Team Red. They must be paying you to shill for them.
Collectivistjeff racist groomer is literally a clump of cancer cells, and a threat to your family.
Indeed. Pedo Jeffy is universally reviled here, and likely everywhere else. I can’t imagine anyone tolerating his physical presence for more than a few minutes before feeling compelled to beat him until he shit blood. And speaking of blood, I’m fairly certain his blood type is cookie dough.
Also, wow, that link. I, uh, I kinda can't believe they still use the DAF name if that's where it came from. Yikes.
They aren't much different. They're definitely no different than a Democrat from the 1930's or 1950's.
Republicans are probably worse then they were back then. Mostly because a lot of them only pay lip service to the ideas of smaller government and less spending.
A Democrat in the 1850's, especially in the South, was a social conservative - trying to preserve the established order of things. Part of their reason for trying to preserve slavery was because that is how things had always been. A Republican in the 1850's, especially in the abolitionist North, was the "social justice warrior" of the day - a crusader trying to rid the country of a moral evil, even through violence and war if necessary. In terms of their view on social issues, the two parties were diametrically opposite of today.
If you had to guess which party in 1856 had this in their platform, which would it be?
1. That the Federal Government is one of limited power, derived solely from the Constitution; and the grants of power made therein ought to be strictly construed by all the departments and agents of the government; and that it is inexpedient and dangerous to exercise doubtful constitutional powers.
2. That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the power to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements.
3. That the Constitution does not confer authority upon the Federal Government, directly or indirectly, to assume the debts of the several States, contracted for local and internal improvements, or other State purposes; nor would such assumption be just or expedient.
4. That justice and sound policy forbid the Federal Government to foster one branch of industry to the detriment of any other, or to cherish the interests of one portion to the injury of another portion of our common country; that every citizen and every section of the country has a right to demand and insist upon an equality of rights and privileges, and to complete and ample protection of persons and property from domestic violence or foreign aggression.
5. That it is the duty of every branch of the Government to enforce and practice the most rigid economy in conducting our public affairs, and that no more revenue ought to be raised than is required to defray the necessary expenses of the Government, and for the gradual but certain extinction of the public debt.
Hint: It was the Democratic Party.
https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/1856-democratic-party-platform
The two parties were almost entirely flipped based on how we know them today.
No, they really did not. I know it's fun to play the "Really, we changed. Totally" card...but the Dems did not. Still bigoted little shits.
I wonder what it was they were trying to preserve that would make them think the federal government should butt out of their business...
They had no problem running to big daddy fed to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act. Or Dred Scott. Or Plessy. And let us not forget that the progressives have always thought that minorities were inferior, be that during slavery (which I will admit I don't think there was much in the way of a "progressive movement" during, but slavery was more than rationalized by future progressives) or FDR's 16 years of authoritarian reign or the Civil Rights Movement.
The Democrats are still the party of progressive trash. They just modified their messaging over the years. They are 100% the party of collectivism and nothing is more collectivist then thinking you can own an entire race of people.
You’re trotting out that tired, discredited argument? You really are a democrat drone. Do you try to be a shitweasel, or does it come naturally?
Cunt-1 and Cunt-2.
I'm not a fan of either team, and I do believe that there is unreasonable fear mongering about immigrants being perpetrated by some if not many on the right, but by your definition of scapegoating, which I don't dispute, didn't Tony (and you) scapegoat Republicans?
"They" in your comment implies all Republicans (if "Mexican leaders" and "illegal immigrants" implies all Mexicans or all brown people).
Or am I misunderstanding the nuance in your statement?
I should have said "many Republicans find foreigners to be convenient scapegoats", which is closer to the truth.
No, it’s bullshit. Republicans believe our sovereign borders should be respected and our immigration laws followed. But like the other Marxist democrats, you call anyone ‘racist’ who dissents.
Oh, and explain why ‘brown people’ are breaking Republican in unprecedented numbers. Of course we’re talking about Americans and not illegals.
So you're saying you think brown people are bad for this country? That's pretty racist Tony.
Par for the course from Tony, tbh.
He’s a massive bigot, like all democrats.
Exterminate all the brown people
Kindly spare us your lurid racist fantasies.
-jcr
Awesome, Tony! You're batting .500, this puts you amongst the elite of butt hurt left wing censors.
It’s a dark world you live in, tony. Sucks to be you.
Let’s go Brandon. At least you got that part right.
I don't know whether to find it charming or sad that you don't know the most fundamental mission of your own political movement.
The end goal of all right-winger politics is genocide. You call it building a wall. It's been called lots of things. But you tell me why building a wall and kicking out immigrants or putting them in actual concentration camps is the pragmatic policy solution during both the economy of 2019 and the economy of 2022. And presumably every other economy. Have Republicans ever not wanted to expel the brown people? Do you think this is some random year-by-year coincidence that it's always economically the right time to kick out the immigrants?
The best we can do is suppress right-wing politics because it always leads to the same thing.
Funny, genocide is the exclusive province of the left. You’ve admitted how you would like to murder all of us several times. It’s just that you Marxists are to weak to make it happen.
https://prod-cdn-static.gop.com/media/documents/DRAFT_12_FINAL%5B1%5D-ben_1468872234.pdf
Where are the calls for genocide? Show it to us. Oh wait, you can't. And yet you claim that WE don't know the purpose of our movement? Nonsense.
Every single time one of you morons calls for expelling all the immigrants. Let's use the more apt phrase "ethnic cleansing."
Only illegals need to leave you lying poof. Legal immigrants should have the same opportunities as everyone else. But your sick, diseased Marxist mind can’t understand that.
No, we need to exterminate all the Marxists. Like you Tony. I would gladly have millions more ‘brown people’ as citizens as long as they are patriotic Americans, and not filthy Marxist democrats. Like you Tony.
I have to say it's a bold strategy for the leader of a country to publicly declare that he doesn't want it to be great.
Very few people in this country DON'T want America to be a great nation.
But no one should be under any naive illusion that the term MAGA *only* means "hey, let's make America a great nation." It means much more than that. It refers to a specific set of ideas of precisely how its adherents think that greatness should be achieved.
It refers to a specific set of ideas of precisely how its adherents think that greatness should be achieved.
What's your next guess?
It's always been quite vague, so people project their own ideas onto it, just like the idiotic term "social justice".
-jcr
Oh come on. While there is some flexibility in what precisely MAGA means, it broadly represents a right-wing view of how America ought to be great. No one would seriously claim, for example, that single-payer health care is congruent with what is typically referred to as the "MAGA agenda".
Most Democrats deny it as well.
Single payer healthcare would destroy this country.
MAGA is a form of populism built around a national identity. It's not some fringe ideology, and It is certainly not incompatible with progressive causes like the civil rights movement. Ghandi was a noted Indian nationalists and his Hindu identity was a driving force behind his crusade.
Throughout history people banded mostly in service to their NATION, not a disparate cause. It's how cultures and language endure for centuries, in the face of pestilence and foreign invasion. In America, immigrants build their own sphere in parts of the country, rather than become a part of a nameless blob of "colored people".
Chemjeff will fixate on some unsavory rhetoric like "They stole jerbs" and ignore more nuance aspects of the movement, which is like me dismissing the criminal justice reform in its entirety because BLM shouts "ACAB". States like CA is exhibit A in how massive (illegal) immigration changes the landscape of a nation, for better or worse. And right now, the place is feeling the strain on housing, infrastructure, cost of living and taxation, and given the political persuasion of most immigrants, there's no end in sight.
And when elected officials obsess over banner identity causes and the welfare of foreign nationals to the point of neglecting rampaging in house issues like inflation, border insanity, crimes, and shortages of essentials, the voters will resent their elected officials. And this goes beyond white "natives", because even Latinos are warming up to closing the borders. starting MAGA can resonate because it recognizes that sentiment.
Rand Paul is a MAGA politician. Oh wait, he's not some red neck flag waving trailer trash with an "F -them brown people" shirt? No, but he stood alone in demanding accountability for a 40 billion dollar Ukraine aid, and emphasized his loyalty to the constitution and the American people. His dad was original MAGA and he was against illegal immigration.
Millions of democrats root for the destruction of this country. We see it every day. And your master, Biden, is giving them what they want. You just be so proud you voted for him.
"It's a mutual choice to work here. If at any time, either party decides to part ways, it can happen."
Hard core capitalism! (Not really, but way more based than anything coming out of media houses lately.)
"Don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out."
As everyone in the world will tell you, Netflix not being discriminating in its content is why it's failing.
Netflix not being discriminating in its content is why it's failing
Where by "failing" you mean "reported its very first ever drop in subscribers."
Okay, fine, go on and make Netflix a part of your cultural identity because Dave Chapelle was mean to trans people.
Are you saying that the blue haired brigade is Netflix's primary customer base and by broadening it's programming they're leaving?
Because they hate minorities and refuse to watch programming aimed or showcasing them?
Ive been told, by most of the liberals in the US, that capital b Black needs to be separated from POC and other groups because of their special victimhood.
Unless of course...they have the audacity to get off the DNC messaging plantation and have an original opinion. Then they are hateful bigots, and uncle toms.
But trust us guys, the libs who boil everything down to race and then send massive amounts of hate at any black person who dares get uppity with them, they are the true heroes and anti-racists we should all aspire to be.
On the contrary, I think there's a shit ton of money to be made by fleecing disaffected reactionaries. Look at Joe Rogan. Look at Ben Shapiro. Either these people are the dumbest motherfuckers ever to walk the face of the earth, and thus should not have podcasts, or they are poking at your overdeveloped amygdala all the way to the bank. To be fair, Joe Rogan is the dumbest motherfucker on the planet.
Tony, YOU are a ‘disaffected reactionary’. And a worthless bigot.
There isn't anything remotely stupid in hosting a show that allows voices to be made from any viewpoint. Why do you want to censor free speech?
I don't, I just want stupid people to speak less.
Then you should be a mute.
Dave Chapelle was mean to trans people.
He wasn't mean to anyone. Fuck you if you can't take a joke.
-jcr
That part wasn't funny though. You can tell by the no laughter.
He still wasn't being mean. You chose to get offended, simple as that.
You’re just too stupid to appreciate humor.
...by discussing his trans friend who was driven to despair?
That meanness?
Tony, bitchy faggots like you have been more venomous to tranny’s historically than any other group. But as you are a collectivist democrat drone, you spout the new dogma like none of that happened.
Im assuming you, like most libs in America, dont actually know anyone from around the world and mostly just know other libs in your little mind virus bubble.
I think people are finally seeing there is a maximum market cap (on profitability anyways) of selling PC culture, white guilt, and gender weirdness. Turns out even died in the wool libs are getting bored of the same playbook.
But you're the one claiming right here to be surrounded by ultra-woke culture. I know a lot of people with a lot of races and sexual and gender identities, but rarely do I ever encounter any tone policing or rudeness. My suggestion is for you to get off the internet and check out real life.
"I know a lot of... gender identities"
More than two?
rarely do I ever encounter any tone policing or rudeness
Sure, stay in your bubble with nobody to gainsay the orthodoxy, and it will never come up. You'll rarely hear anyone criticize Kim Fat Ass in North Korea.
-jcr
That’s rich, tony. Most of us in “real life” get along pretty well. Your version of “real life” is centered around anger, bitterness and perpetual grievance. Sucks to be you.
“This is no world for the fragile”. Haha.
A man that identifies himself with some arbitrary term does not change reality of who he really is.
Repent of your wickedness and seek Jesus, Tony.
“People will die!”
Haha. Remember that, tony? Now, he was just “being mean”?
You’re making progress, buddy. Maybe in a few more months you’ll be saying, “fuck em if they can’t take a joke.”
Ok, probably not.
Give it a week. My hunch is is that Netflix will be "walking back" this statement as well. I can already read the groveling word salad retraction. "Blah blah blah emotional welfare of our employees blah blah blah push back against potentially harmful ideas blah blah blah safe and inclusive blah blah ...."
im sure we will immediately be hearing from the crying babies there that this has caused them personal harm, violence, and will lead to genocide if we dont acquiesce to their whinging.
The best way to deal with shrill tranny activists is to scrape them off. Why would ANYONE hire some freakshow, shrill, activist lunatic that will never be anything but trouble and will always be a vicitm bully?
"This is a great statement and should serve as a model for other companies that produce ideological content or are involved in the marketplace of ideas"
Except for the constant use of 'diversity' where 'variety' is more appropriate.
You can have 'a variety of things or 'a diverse audience' - you don't have 'a diversity of audiences and tastes'.
Wow... blind squirrel moment.
"...even though these expectations inevitably work against the interests of millions of customers. (Among the general public, Dave Chappelle is extremely popular.)"
And the owners; the employees can walk if they are costing the owners money.
"As employees we support the principle that Netflix offers a diversity of stories, even if we find some titles counter to our own personal values. Depending on your role, you may need to work on titles you perceive to be harmful. If you'd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you."
Might we suggest China or the more shrill parts of Europe?
Netflix doesn’t need to offer diversity, they need to offer a catalog of content that appeals to enough consumers so they get enough subscribers. The diversity part works itself out.
About time someone said out loud "Yes, actually I AM the boss of you".
Fuck Netflix...you're getting less relevant by the day.
Shadow banned on reason, lol.
No you're not.
I suppose that if it's a question of wokeness v. corporate greed, I'll support corporate greed.
Though in principle I certainly think companies should consider the moral implications of the entertainment they broadcast, in practice if morality is considered equivalent to wokeness then we're in a bizarre situation where profit-driven amorality is preferable to the viable alternative.
OTOH, it's an unfortunate concession to grant wokeness a monopoly on moral concern about entertainment.
Eventually, if the woke puts forward their version of morality, people will have to reply, "you've got morality backwards," not "wow, man, what is truth, if you know what I mean?"
That latter option cedes the moral high ground to the woke by making them representatives of morality versus "what sells." Which actually awards them unearned Virtue Points.
Better to say "if in our judgment we consider a program to be immoral we won't broadcast it, *and* we think a good indication of immorality is that you woke people approve it enthusiastically. Likewise, if you oppose something that's probably a good sign it has at least some redeeming moral value. Thus, it would seem that there's some nuggets of moral truth in Chappelle's broadcasts, otherwise you wouldn't be squawking so loudly."
Woke = postmodern nazi
See: Tony, collectivistjeff racist groomer as just 2 examples
Though in principle I certainly think companies should consider the moral implications of the entertainment they broadcast
Now do Spotify and Joe Rogan.
Wow.
LOL
What are the moral implications of Rogan, jeff?
doom
No. Let’s talk about your disturbing track record of pedophile friendly policy positions Jeffy.
Sounds like Netflix is adopting an ACLU strategy: Defend the other side's bad guys, so that when you defend your own bad guys you can claim it's principle, not just because you agree with them. (Though it is, and you do.)
By defending some conservative stuff from their own employees, they can claim the mantel of principle when they defend sex grooming children.
The bestest part is that the other side's stuff they're defending isn't actually bad, (Except from the perspective of the terminally woke.) it's like the ACLU defended the Knights of Columbus' right to march, instead of neo-Nazis, in order to justify defending communists' free speech.
It's interesting to me that Chappelle is the only example here. I feel like at least a mention of Cuties and some of the other garbage that's making people abandon the platform is worth a mention.
Remember, Reason's position is more or less that there wasn't anything wrong with Cuties, and anybody who thinks otherwise is probably a dangerous prude.
that's what they mean by "titles you perceive to be harmful. "
now they can say "sure, we produce child porn, but we also allow Dave Chappelle!"
this is what Netflix means by a "balanced approach"
Tucker Carlson will still be shot on sight
It gives them cover for Chappell because his content actually drives subscriber revenue. I doubt their pedophile friendly content brings in much money. Groomer s and child rapists like Jeffy and Shrike probably get the kiddie porn for their spank banks from the dark web. Like the shit Shrike linked here in the past.
yep
try to imagine a world in which Netflix gives $300M to the Trumps instead of the Obamas
I would be very amused by the pain I that would cause subhuman Marxists like Tony and Pedo Jeffy.
Maybe I'll hold off on cancelling my NetFlix subscription.
Now I think, I am the only one who is generating revenue for Netflix by holding their subscription. Soon, it will show recovery.
lol oh Robby so naive
this has nothing to do with allowing any sort of right-wing voices at Netflix
this is about their commitment to child porn
"If you'd find it hard to support our content breadth, Netflix may not be the best place for you."
If only Disney had adopted this policy, they might not be losing their sweetheart deals in Florida.
" Many of these firms hire substantial numbers of progressive young people in an attempt to eventually offer content that is relevant to this key demographic"
And this is why so much of the content sucks anymore.
Mommy's little dumpling never developed into an adult and thus has the mind of a child.