Bullshit. The HR director acting in his official capacity of HR director directed an employee to (coincidentally of the government) to remove a display. This is no different than the HR director of MegaCorp directing a secretary to remove a display from the lobby of MegaCorp. The government connection is purely coincidental.
My response to Uncle Beer would be to acknowledge that I, too, made an error of fact, but that I did not place my error–which does not change the tenor of the entire story–into the opening line of an OP, basing an argument on a false claim.
You claimed that the City Council created the ban. No possible reading of the link can provide that conclusion.
Now, I will not be surprised if we later discover that one or more councilpersons called the HR director to ask what the display was doing there, although that would contradict the HR director’s explicit claim that he has received no complaints.
In a typical situation, I would guess that the building started swirling with private comments or rumors once the display was removed and some reporter heard the rumors and rant to stick a microphone in the face of various councilcritters to get reactions, publishing one con and one pro reaction.
That still leaves no indication (yet) that council had anything to do with the decision. I reacted to your claim that the council had ordered the action. If you wish to insist that your claim was based on the ignorance of not fully reading the article for comprehension rather than the mendacity of playing up an event that never occurred, I am willing to accept that.
Given that it’s a Human Rights director, I’m not sure this is a valid analogy: MegaCorp probably doesn’t have a Human Rights director, especially not one charged with enforcing city human rights ordinances. This looks to me like a specifically government action.
Which is quite straightforwardly wrong. The government connection is not coincidental, or the City council would have had nothing to say about it.
A government employee, acting in his official capacity, directs another government employee about a display on government property, and you claim that this has nothing to do with government.
I repeat my earlier example - a teacher, in her classroom, directs her students to recite the Nicene Creed. Perfectly OK, right? After all, the government connection is purely coincidental.
The “tenor of my OP” is not affected in the least by which government agent created the ban. You have merely seized on a nitpick in order to avoid the issue.
No, I’ve not, and I could be wrong. But it seems like for me to be wrong, it’d have to be unremarkable for a private corporation to have a human rights director charged with enforcing human rights laws within the company. Is this common? It may be, but a cite would be nice: it’s not something I’ve ever heard of.
I don’t see that your original post in that thread broke any rules, but this looks like it’s getting personal in just the way that you’ve chided other folks for.
Yes and no. It’s a specifically governmental action in response to another specifically governmental action, and both actions appear to have been undertaken by an individual acting of their own accord. It’s not like the Human Rights Director forbade the city’s Easter Egg hunt, or anything.
Perhaps. Since Shodan keeps trying to carry this on in two separate threads, I may have not realized which Forum I was in when I posted this response.
I had already decided to drop out of the other thread, since he is spending more time hijacking his own thread with bad analogies than discussing the merits of the great “War on Easter,” so there should not be any recurrences.
Nobody can make you do anything you don’t want to. I think it’s fairly easy to interpret Shodan’s intent from his history as a patient, thoughtful, rational poster. Also, the similarity between his characterization and the typical characterization by others of a “ban on Christmas” that turns out to be a request to use white napkins instead of red and green ones or a request to distribute Jesus pencils at another time, is completely unintended and unfortunate.
When I worked for AT&T, there were people specifically charged with ensuring that various government affirmative action and equal employment guidelines were met, and they did surveys, down to fairly low levels, showing the distribution of positions across various groups. The were in Human Resources, and they were not called Human Rights directors, but they did make decisions on what level of holiday decoration the company would pay for. So I think that’s pretty close.
I had Shodan’s mangled OP pegged as right-wing masturbatory bullstuff the moment I hovered over the link in Great Debates, and was gratified to see our esteemed tomndebb call him on it. Shodan’s subsequent whining is just par for the course for him.
