ADVERTISEMENT

Shame on us self-identifying as Americans

This country has gone crazy. These universities have become a front for the commies and they are brainwashing their students every day.
I’m sorry but the word “commies“ is no longer allowed. From now on you must refer to them as “those who have been blessed with the rightful teachings and enlightened understandings of the Communist Party”.

This will be your final warning. From this point on you will be censored and risk punishment from the authorities.
 
Last edited:
Stanford has always been "imprecise language" for "wimps" or "pant waists" or similar. Don't believe me - just watch the latest season of White Lotus, where the Stanford Graduate of a son gets rolled by a hooker, costing his dad (Christopher Imperioli) 50K. And the whole time one is thinking OF COURSE he went to Stanford.

but anyway ... with that said... one does have to change one's thinking when abroad... I eventually got used to saying the United States / stati uniti, etc. whenever someone asked where I was from and I would normally say "America."
 
Stanford has always been "imprecise language" for "wimps" or "pant waists" or similar. Don't believe me - just watch the latest season of White Lotus, where the Stanford Graduate of a son gets rolled by a hooker, costing his dad (Christopher Imperioli) 50K. And the whole time one is thinking OF COURSE he went to Stanford.

but anyway ... with that said... one does have to change one's thinking when abroad... I eventually got used to saying the United States / stati uniti, etc. whenever someone asked where I was from and I would normally say "America."
Not really true. I’ve traveled to over 45 countries and lived overseas for three years. Even in South America we are “Americans”. I’ve even debated with them that they’re Americans too. Not saying right or wrong but that’s what we are in foreign lands.

But maybe that’s changing.
 
Stanford has always been "imprecise language" for "wimps" or "pant waists" or similar. Don't believe me - just watch the latest season of White Lotus, where the Stanford Graduate of a son gets rolled by a hooker, costing his dad (Christopher Imperioli) 50K. And the whole time one is thinking OF COURSE he went to Stanford.

but anyway ... with that said... one does have to change one's thinking when abroad... I eventually got used to saying the United States / stati uniti, etc. whenever someone asked where I was from and I would normally say "America."
Yeah, but they are saying we shouldn't refer to ourselves as Americans. It's crazy because most of the world refers to us as Americans. Who is going to tell the rest of the world what to do?

It's just crazy that so much time and energy is being wasted on controlling all aspects of speech instead of tackling real problems.
 
Yeah, but they are saying we shouldn't refer to ourselves as Americans. It's crazy because most of the world refers to us as Americans. Who is going to tell the rest of the world what to do?

It's just crazy that so much time and energy is being wasted on controlling all aspects of speech instead of tackling real problems.
Damn these hypocrites I am still American they want control the way I speak!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dirty Hairy Dawg
Damn these hypocrites I am still American they want control the way I speak!
you guys: unless you are PUBLISHING ON BEHALF OF STANFORD ON ITS EXTERNAL-FACING DOCUMENTS/DIGITAL PROPERTIES, you are not going to be impacted

someone seems to have put an internal document out in the wild > and WSJ picked it up (if they didn't release it in the first place).

why might they have done that?
do you realize that your rage has become a commodity to them?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rednblack4life
you guys: unless you are PUBLISHING ON BEHALF OF STANFORD ON ITS EXTERNAL-FACING DOCUMENTS/DIGITAL PROPERTIES, you are not going to be impacted

someone seems to have put an internal document out in the wild > and WSJ picked it up (if they didn't release it in the first place).

why might they have done that?
do you realize that your rage has become a commodity to them?
This is a bit naive. Sure, this is an internal policy for outward facing documents. But it’s a statement from one of the most prestigious institutions on how they view communication. If you believe this will not bleed into their teachings, educational philosophies, and approach to and expectations of their student body, then I fear you underestimate this.

Plus, this is not isolated. There is a growing wave of these mindsets in the entire educational system, media, workplace environment and governmental policies and actions

After the Roe vs Wade decision my niece from California told me that her company was offering to relocate employees from states that supported anti-abortion practices. Whether you’re for or against abortion, why does a company need to get involved with this with their employees? She said millennials want to work with companies that align with their viewpoints.

Think about that. A company is now supposed to align with the political philosophies of their employees? That’s an expectation? All of my philosophies? What if you and I work there and we don’t agree. Doses the company have to choose which one they will now align with? Do they now discriminate against the other employee who is now not aligned? Etc

This is just another example of a correction pendulum that has swung too far. And its roots are deep. This is just another blossom on a giant tree.
 
This is a bit naive. Sure, this is an internal policy for outward facing documents. But it’s a statement from one of the most prestigious institutions on how they view communication. If you believe this will not bleed into their teachings, educational philosophies, and approach to and expectations of their student body, then I fear you underestimate this.

Plus, this is not isolated. There is a growing wave of these mindsets in the entire educational system, media, workplace environment and governmental policies and actions

After the Roe vs Wade decision my niece from California told me that her company was offering to relocate employees from states that supported anti-abortion practices. Whether you’re for or against abortion, why does a company need to get involved with this with their employees? She said millennials want to work with companies that align with their viewpoints.

Think about that. A company is now supposed to align with the political philosophies of their employees? That’s an expectation? All of my philosophies? What if you and I work there and we don’t agree. Doses the company have to choose which one they will now align with? Do they now discriminate against the other employee who is now not aligned? Etc

This is just another example of a correction pendulum that has swung too far. And its roots are deep. This is just another blossom on a giant tree.
actually, I think this is equally naive > companies aren't "supposed" to do anything in your described scenario - they do it to gain competitive advantage and only if executives decide that is an apt course given their employee pool.

And, again, Stanford is what it is.

And, adding, women's health issues are not the same order here
 
Last edited:
actually, I think this is equally naive > companies aren't "supposed" to do anything in your described scenario - they do it to gain competitive advantage and only if executives decide that is an apt course given their employee pool.

And, again, Stanford is what it is.
It is not that I don’t understand their motivation…it’s the right or wrong of it. It has nothing to do with me being naive…it has to do with my understanding that the very action of aligning with certain employee political stances is discriminatory and therefore hypocritical.

I’m not talking about companies that have founded themselves during inception around certain beliefs (see Chic-fil-A as an example). I’m talking about ebbing and flowing with the wind. You say that a company will decide on a course based on their employee pool…THAT is the point. They can never align 100% with one person…much less the entire employee base. They shouldn’t be expected to try.

A company has two responsibilities: 1) pay a fair wage for a required job and 2) provide a safe and discrimination free work environment. But society is now putting expectations on companies to rally around individual beliefs. How do you do that when everyone has different beliefs? And then the very act of trying means you isolate employees who aren’t aligned

That is the problem. It’s naive to say it’s okay because certain execs are just putting their sails up to catch the wind.

We, as a society, should condemn this behavior not justify it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athens is Heaven
It is not that I don’t understand their motivation…it’s the right or wrong of it. It has nothing to do with me being naive…it has to do with my understanding that the very action of aligning with certain employee political stances is discriminatory and therefore hypocritical.

I’m not talking about companies that have founded themselves during inception around certain beliefs (see Chic-fil-A as an example). I’m talking about ebbing and flowing with the wind. You say that a company will decide on a course based on their employee pool…THAT is the point. They can never align 100% with one person…much less the entire employee base. They shouldn’t be expected to try.

A company has two responsibilities: 1) pay a fair wage for a required job and 2) provide a safe and discrimination free work environment. But society is now putting expectations on companies to rally around individual beliefs. How do you do that when everyone has different beliefs? And then the very act of trying means you isolate employees who aren’t aligned

That is the problem. It’s naive to say it’s okay because certain execs are just putting their sails up to catch the wind.

We, as a society, should condemn this behavior not justify it.
"putting up your sails to catch the wind" is not dissimilar from the invisible hand. nothing is changed.

these things are never crises.

and TBH, since you brought up overcorrextions (which I agree if someday referring to Americans as Americans is banned lol by the government or whatever) - our country's employment environment could stand to blow toward workers for a little while - but we are arguing nuance here. My main objection is just that it's nothing to hyperventilate over, and to the extent that WSJ/NYPost want you to hyperventilate about it, they've gotcha.
 
Last edited:
"putting up your sails to catch the wind" is not dissimilar from the invisible hand. nothing is changed.

these things are never crises.

and TBH, since you brought up overcorrextions (which I agree if someday referring to Americans as Americans is banned lol by the government or whatever) - our country's employment environment could stand to blow toward workers for a little while
Then I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Blowing toward the workers? The past 100 years has been blowing toward the workers. OSHA, worker‘s compensation, anti-harassment policies, HR, hiring and firing practices, etc. etc. Are there still problems…sure. Are all employers good…nope…but the workers continue to get more power and rights year after year.

BUT…that’s not the point. Instilling politics and creating a discriminatory environment when an employee doesn’t align is the opposite of what your saying. It is empowering the employer not the employee. Surely you see this and aren’t just arguing.

If you don’t then here is an example: Company A doesn’t like the Anti-abortion movement so it tells employees they’ll move them to another state if they feel oppressed by this decision. What if I’m an employee who is anti abortion and wants to move to a state that aligns with my belief? Will the company move me? If not, then I’m being discriminated against. Reverse this and it’s the same. For or against marijuana legalization. Company takes a stance either way…employee A and B have different opinions from each other. Company does the same for both or only the one aligned?

I can go on and on…religion, voting rights, party affiliation, etc. etc. When a company implements employee policy around a political initiative…it discriminates. Do you agree that is a bad practice? If we can’t agree on that simple point then I give up.
 
Last edited:
Then I’m afraid you’re missing the point. Blowing toward the workers? The past 100 years has been blowing toward the workers. OSHA, worker‘s compensation, anti-harassment policies, HR, hiring and firing practices, etc. etc. Are there still problems…sure. Are all employers good…nope…but the workers continue to get more power and rights year after year.

BUT…that’s not the point. Instilling politics and creating a discriminatory environment when an employee doesn’t align is the opposite of what your saying. It is empowering the employer not the employee. Surely you see this and aren’t just arguing.

If you don’t then here is an example: Company A doesn’t like the Anti-abortion movement so it tells employees they’ll move them to another state if they feel oppressed by this decision. What if I’m an employee who is anti abortion and wants to move to a state that aligns with my belief? Will the company move me? If not, then I’m being discriminated against. Reverse this and it’s the same. For or against marijuana legalization. Company takes a stance either way…employee A and B have different opinions from each other. Company does the same for both or only the one aligned?

I can go on and on…religion, voting rights, party affiliation, etc. etc. When a company implements employee policy around a political initiative…it discriminates. Do you agree that is a bad practice? If we can’t agree on that simple point the I give up.
i don't agree with the logic here - will respond substantively in the AM.
 
Please don’t. There’s nothing left to talk about.
okay, I will just summarize then - just off the top of my head some bullet points suggesting that corporations (as distinct from small businesses) have much more power than at any time since the gilded age. This is not a particularly daring claim.

1) real wage stagnation vs. corporate profit
2) declining powers of collective bargaining and the rise of right to work states and the subsequent shift in what that means - from empowering workers to protecting corporations. (Union membership/power way down over past forty years as economy has shifted and as precipitated in the 1980s with manufacturing heading overseas, etc.).
3) continued capture of government by big business, including of our political system - citizens untied, dark money, etc.
4) only since Obamacare have independent/freelance workers been guaranteed access under health insurance laws. Despite that work has changed, we remain tied to jobs who own our health insurance (this is not good for small and medium sized business owners either) - the more malign effects of this paradigm are most readily visualized in service, hospitality, and higher education, where part time workers (adjunct faculty) are commonly preferred in order for employers to avoid having to pay for benefits. And this is the trend - whereas once upon a time employer-provided health care was a response to bad work conditions, etc., and viewed as a form of corporate responsibility to its workers, later becoming a perk, it is now both carrot and stick. imho, not a cost-effective means of providing healthcare.
5) (really 1b and 3b) federal minimum wage lagging - many states helping to address this

I could go on, and we might debate point by point what is "good for America" and what not, but in general, while some of the gains you cite are real and meaningful, the past 100 years have not in fact been blowing toward the workers. Indeed, on some points those very gains are being eroded or threatened, sometimes because of overreach, as you say, but sometimes because it costs corporations money and they don't like it.

We are now 20 years into the 21st century. The first 80 years of the 1900s, sure, workers and employment rights had a good run. But that's long past. (I will say that we do seem to be again at a turning point. Trumpism encodes some of this dissatisfaction, though the solutions differ by party).

As for discrimination in the workplace, your complaints do not make much sense to me. It is one thing to be the subject of discrimination. It is quite another to demand the right to discriminate.

And it's moot: corporations in these matters will do exactly what serves them best. IMHO, and maybe we can agree on this, one of the most pathetic things about the United States right now is that people feel the need to look to the corporate sector to serve as some sort of moral arbiter, calling for boycotts when we feel betrayed by other elements in our society, etc., which is silly and merely symbolic and rarely has a meaningful effect. Corporations wield such immense power in our society - over politics - etc. - that I think we can be forgiven the impulse - but they cannot and should not be relied upon in this regard. Corporations will serve the needs of shareholders.

And now that I fulfilled my promise to return to the subject, we can be done if you wish.
 
Last edited:
We can be done. There are trace elements of facts in a lot of what you say but it is paper thin across the board. Most of your points are rhetoric or sophistry. But to debate that point by point is futile. You will see it the way you see it. I am not a Trumper nor a Bidenist…my goal is to see both sides and make practical decisions. It is difficult for anyone that lands on one side to concede anything in a debate. That is frustrating and in the end a waste of time for me

The one statement you made that makes zero sense is this:

As for discrimination in the workplace, your complaints do not make much sense to me. It is one thing to be the subject of discrimination. It is quite another to demand the right to discriminate

Please don’t try to explain it because that would just extend this. My point is simple…corporations may do things like this but we should discourage it. Should be outraged by it…fearful of it.

Have a good holiday!
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athens is Heaven
actually, I think this is equally naive > companies aren't "supposed" to do anything in your described scenario - they do it to gain competitive advantage and only if executives decide that is an apt course given their employee pool.

And, again, Stanford is what it is.

And, adding, women's health issues are not the same order here
That’s not a health issue. That’s an irresponsibility issue.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Athens is Heaven
Stanford has always been "imprecise language" for "wimps" or "pant waists" or similar. Don't believe me - just watch the latest season of White Lotus, where the Stanford Graduate of a son gets rolled by a hooker, costing his dad (Christopher Imperioli) 50K. And the whole time one is thinking OF COURSE he went to Stanford.

but anyway ... with that said... one does have to change one's thinking when abroad... I eventually got used to saying the United States / stati uniti, etc. whenever someone asked where I was from and I would normally say "America."
I noticed the same thing about White Lotus (S2). Chuckled just a little bit at "Christopher Imperioli" and the power of television. The actor is Michael Imperioli, and his character on the Sopranos was Christopher Moltisanti, but I knew exactly what you meant.
 
I noticed the same thing about White Lotus (S2). Chuckled just a little bit at "Christopher Imperioli" and the power of television. The actor is Michael Imperioli, and his character on the Sopranos was Christopher Moltisanti, but I knew exactly what you meant.
oh jeeze. I am guessing he gets that a lot, and he probably doesn't mind too much because that performance is indelible.
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT