Tricia Macke calls Rachel Maddow "angry young man."

Originally posted by dadudemon
Prove that this would happen

prove what? her actions caused a controversy around the news station because she was a public face of the company... you made a thread about it even...???

that is exactly what I am talking about. The brand is tarnished by her doing this.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I can ask you a different question: why do you think the employer has absolute control over the employees, even when the employees are "off-the-clock", at home, using their own resources on a private forum?

the employer has a right to protect their brand

also, not private enough

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is still some mystery involved, for sure. We are not even close to fully understanding sexuality.

I thought you knew enough about psych to realize people talking about a union between "will, mind and body" is speaking gibberish to try and look informed about a topic.

just because something isn't well known (it is much better known than you present) doesn't mean anyone becomes an expert on it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
And that needs to change. You should be able to sue them for their "retaliation" because of what you do in your personal life. Let us add another section to Title VII under the civil rights act. We need to cover sexuality in the Civil Rights act, anyway.

No. My company has a brand to protect, both in a philosophical sense (it's a non-profit, so there's a set of goals, ideals, and principles outside of making money) and a monetary one of staying strong. If they put a personal conduct clause in the contract I sign, then an insensitive FB post or tweet gets out, they're within their rights to fire or suspend me. Likely it wouldn't result in firing, but some discipline would be taken. This is a company's right, and a necessity in order to maintain a strong company that puts forward the image of its founders or leaders.

Saying that this can't happen would be a moral and legal imposition on businesses. It would be dictating business practices from a federal level, which is a clear invasion of capitalistic freedom, and protecting many who bring harm to their respective companies.

Because it's a dangerous precedent to set to say that company's can't set policies of how they enforce their rules of conduct. It's not a slippery slope argument...I think any decision of this nature would be much too far. This isn't revolutionary thinking though; I'd be shocked if ANY business today didn't have conduct policies that allowed them to take immediate action if they were breached by the employee. It's a safeguard, not repression. A privately owned and operated business has every right to draft contracts of this nature...no one forces the employee to sign them.

Originally posted by Digi
No. My company has a brand to protect, both in a philosophical sense (it's a non-profit, so there's a set of goals, ideals, and principles outside of making money) and a monetary one of staying strong. If they put a personal conduct clause in the contract I sign, then an insensitive FB post or tweet gets out, they're within their rights to fire or suspend me. Likely it wouldn't result in firing, but some discipline would be taken. This is a company's right, and a necessity in order to maintain a strong company that puts forward the image of its founders or leaders.

Saying that this can't happen would be a moral and legal imposition on businesses. It would be dictating business practices from a federal level, which is a clear invasion of capitalistic freedom, and protecting many who bring harm to their respective companies.

Because it's a dangerous precedent to set to say that company's can't set policies of how they enforce their rules of conduct. It's not a slippery slope argument...I think any decision of this nature would be much too far. This isn't revolutionary thinking though; I'd be shocked if ANY business today didn't have conduct policies that allowed them to take immediate action if they were breached by the employee. It's a safeguard, not repression. A privately owned and operated business has every right to draft contracts of this nature...no one forces the employee to sign them.

There is a big difference between a public tweet and a private tweet. There is also a big difference between a public post and a private post on Facebook.

You company has no business meddling in your private conversations. If you want to complain about something your business is doing with your friends, off the clock, on your own private computer, in your own home, you should be able to do so. And it should be illegal for a company to force you to sign a "STFU" clause which prevents you from saying anything negative about that company in private.

It is a moral and should be a legal matter for a business to crack down on private conversations.

Also, smack-talking your company is hardly the same as a person shit-talking about another person. Your comparison does not quite cut it.

There is an exception, as I hinted at with Oliver North: Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If you act in a way, as an executive, that can be proven to be against the company while a high-level manager, it is illegal.

Originally posted by Oliver North
prove what? her actions caused a controversy around the news station because she was a public face of the company... you made a thread about it even...???

You missed it, again. I give up. Can anyone explain to Oliver North what he is missing for me?

Originally posted by Oliver North
the employer has a right to protect their brand

also, not private enough

Sure, as long as it doesn't infringe on after hours, private, conversations. And shit-talking between two people is hardly a brand concern. 😐

Originally posted by Oliver North
I thought you knew enough about psych to realize people talking about a union between "will, mind and body" is speaking gibberish to try and look informed about a topic.

I thought you knew enough about psychology and neurology to know that sexuality is a combination of genetics and environment which can be rephrased in layman's terms as a union between body (hormones, genetics, etc.), mind (the result of the previous mixed in with "environment"😉, and will (the actions the brain takes based upon the previous two with a sprinkle of "WTF did it chose this for?)"?

Originally posted by Oliver North
just because something isn't well known (it is much better known than you present) doesn't mean anyone becomes an expert on it.

Actually, I think it is much less known that you think. In fact, we know so little it is quite frustrating. We are not even at the tip of the iceberg. Psychology is supposed to be subsumed by neuroscience, eventually, and we are just now starting to do so. A quick way to tell if a neuroscientist is full of shit or knows his/her stuff is ask them how much we know about neuroscience. If their answer does not boil down to "hardly anything", they are full of shit.

man, I wish I knew as much as you do ddm...

Originally posted by dadudemon

I thought you knew enough about psychology and neurology to know that sexuality is a combination of genetics and environment which can be rephrased in layman's terms as a union between body (hormones, genetics, etc.), mind (the result of the previous mixed in with "environment"😉, and will (the actions the brain takes based upon the previous two with a sprinkle of "WTF did it chose this for?)"

"He was right, he just didn't have any justification in thinking he was right" is a classic example of what falls in the "Not Knowledge" category of epistemology.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The argument wasn't phrased in those terms; don't make excuses for someone talking out of his ass.

I am not making any excuses: that is genuinely how I thought he intended it.

Originally posted by Oliver North
man, I wish I knew as much as you do ddm...

It will take you a very very long time to get there. Hang in, there, buddy.

Seriously, though, me admitting we know little of neuroscience and psychology is hardly me claiming to know everything: it is the opposite. Do you even think about how silly your posts are when you're angry at me, or do you hope that the obvious ridiculousness of your posts will be overlooked and people will get a laugh at my expense? Great way to have an adult discussion.

good point

Originally posted by dadudemon
There is a big difference between a public tweet and a private tweet. There is also a big difference between a public post and a private post on Facebook.

You company has no business meddling in your private conversations. If you want to complain about something your business is doing with your friends, off the clock, on your own private computer, in your own home, you should be able to do so. And it should be illegal for a company to force you to sign a "STFU" clause which prevents you from saying anything negative about that company in private.

It is a moral and should be a legal matter for a business to crack down on private conversations.

Also, smack-talking your company is hardly the same as a person shit-talking about another person. Your comparison does not quite cut it.

There is an exception, as I hinted at with Oliver North: Sarbanes-Oxley Act. If you act in a way, as an executive, that can be proven to be against the company while a high-level manager, it is illegal.

Well, see, there's the distinction. Personal v. Private. If I write something on my home computer, save it in a folder, no, of course the company shouldn't do anything to me.

If I post a public tweet, of course they should be able to take action.

Now we have the third category, which is posting something in a public forum (i.e. one's facebook page) and treating it like it is category one. It is not. I'd contend that anything that becomes publicly available, unless it was through illegal or coercive means, should be treated like category two (overtly public).

Ergo, the reporter was stupid, shouldn't be able to hide behind "private" when it was posted to an openly public forum, and she deserves her punishment. And yes, insulting another person can directly damage a company. "My company sucks" and "this person sucks for an arbitrary and possibly homophobic reason" are functionally equivalent in terms of potential detriment. At best, her FB page had some privacy settings (doubtful, she's a public figure) and still went out to hundreds of people. Hardly private. These were publicly stated thoughts.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I am not making any excuses: that is genuinely how I thought he intended it.

It's like if some ancient and well-thought-of philosopher made some predictions that turned out to line up with quantum mechanics and someone was to claim that this means he knew about quantum mechanics and then fill in the gaps of his argument to show that.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Which is making an excuse, because you're offering an explanation that you might think he meant to give, but in fact didn't or couldn't.

The same applies to you: you're offering an interpretation that you think he might give but in fact didn't or couldn't.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
It's like if some ancient and well-thought-of philosopher made some predictions that turned out to line up with quantum mechanics and someone was to claim that this means he knew about quantum mechanics and then fill in the gaps of his argument to show that.

Well, except, in this case, he is in this modern world with a modern education so it is not like that, at all.

Originally posted by Digi
Well, see, there's the distinction. Personal v. Private. If I write something on my home computer, save it in a folder, no, of course the company shouldn't do anything to me.

If I post a public tweet, of course they should be able to take action.

It wasn't a public tweet...but read the very end of my post. 🙁

Originally posted by Digi
Now we have the third category, which is posting something in a public forum (i.e. one's facebook page) and treating it like it is category one. It is not. I'd contend that anything that becomes publicly available, unless it was through illegal or coercive means, should be treated like category two (overtly public).

Private forum of discussion means it is not searchable with any legal search engine. A private facebook page is one of those: you cannot search it with a legal search engine (there are hacks but that is hardly legal).

Originally posted by Digi
Ergo, (1)the reporter was stupid, (2)shouldn't be able to hide behind "private" when it was posted to an openly public forum, (3)and she deserves her punishment.

1. Agreed.
2. It was private...but read the end of my post.
3. She doesn't and it should be illegal to do so.

Originally posted by Digi
And yes, insulting another person can directly damage a company.

I asked Oliver North to provide an example of this but he couldn't. Can you?

Originally posted by Digi
"My company sucks"

"...smack-talking your company is hardly the same as a person shit-talking about another person. Your comparison does not quite cut it."

Originally posted by Digi
and "this person sucks for an arbitrary and possibly homophobic reason"

Interesting interpretation of her insult.

Originally posted by Digi
are functionally equivalent in terms of potential detriment.

Incorrect and I already explained why.

Originally posted by Digi
At best, her FB page had some privacy settings (doubtful, she's a public figure) and still went out to hundreds of people. Hardly private. These were publicly stated thoughts.

It was a private Facebook page. She probably did have hundreds of friends: no doubt.

However, I did some research and I am wrong: he profile is public as are her comments. 🙁 However, you cannot view her profile unless you have an account. That is technically still private because it is not searchable with a search engine...but it is public. 🙁

Originally posted by dadudemon
The same applies to you: you're offering an interpretation that you think he might give but in fact didn't or couldn't.

Well, except, in this case, he is in this modern world with a modern education so it is not like that, at all.

My example would apply just as well to a modern thinker who makes claims out of air that are later confirmed by CERN's experiments--leading to his proponents attempting to fabricate some explanation for how he came to his conclusion short of admitting that he was making a statement from ignorance that was coincidentally valid and accurate.

To simplify: assuming that this Dr. Grier's belief is true, there's nothing in his statement that shows it as justified by real research or education, and you're only attempting to speak for him and contrive justification.

Again, even if his view on sex turned out to be correct it would only mean that he had a coincidentally true belief, which is at least one card short of real knowledge by most modern epistemological standards.

In layman's terms: he was talking out of his ass unless you can actually show some proof that he has a relevant education and he's not just a doctor of theology.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
What interpretation do you think I'm giving? And does this mean that you've conceded that you're making excuses? Because you didn't defend yourself here, only tried the time honored "take you down with me" maneuver.

I think I did a pretty good job, actually. 🙂

That is not a concession but, rather, me pointing out the futility of your position.

"He didn't mean that!"

"Yes he did."

Move on.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The existence of said modern education does not mean that he has taken advantage of it in the relevant fields. I think you're being overly charitable to him and speaking for him.

Considering his presentation, I'd say it does (he shows at least a decent understanding of how it works, in the real world but it is in layman's terms). And add on that I called some of what he says, "idiocy" and then that's the end of it. But then you typed a lot more...

just to throw it out there...

it wasn't anything particular about Dr. Grier that elicited my comment outside of word choice.

"mind, body, will, and emotions." isn't a phrase anyone familiar with psychology beyond 1930 would say...

also, in terms of how most of those concepts are used in modern psych/biology, it would be interesting to hear how they relate to sexuality aside from indirect contexts... such as thinking homosexuality is a choice...

Originally posted by dadudemon
I think I did a pretty good job, actually. 🙂

That is not a concession but, rather, me pointing out the futility of your position.

"He didn't mean that!"

"Yes he did."

Move on.

Considering his presentation, I'd say it does (he shows at least a decent understanding of how it works, in the real world but it is in layman's terms). And add on that I called some of what he says, "idiocy" and then that's the end of it. But then you typed a lot more...

Originally posted by Oliver North
just to throw it out there...

it wasn't anything particular about Dr. Grier that elicited my comment outside of word choice.

"mind, body, will, and emotions." isn't a phrase anyone familiar with psychology beyond 1930 would say....

To be honest, and feel free to call me out (seriously, I have no problem admitting it), I didn't read about "mind, body, will, and emotions" in pre 1930s psychology. I only read about the mind-body dualism stuff being used in nascent psychology.

If you're right and not just extrapolating old-school psych(meaning, my understanding of the mind-body thing was off and what you say of the history is spot on), then I need to concede to Omega Vision and admit that my interpretation is actually off.

Originally posted by Oliver North
also, in terms of how most of those concepts are used in modern psych/biology, it would be interesting to hear how they relate to sexuality aside from indirect contexts... such as thinking homosexuality is a choice...

It should come as no shock that he thinks choice plays a large part in ones sexuality...since...he affiliates with an "ex-gay rights" group.

I don't know how I feel about that: I am far too ignorant of ex-gays and ex-gay culture to know if he's on target or way off. That is another topic.

Originally posted by dadudemon
To be honest, and feel free to call me out (seriously, I have no problem admitting it), I didn't read about "mind, body, will, and emotions" in pre 1930s psychology. I only read about the mind-body dualism stuff being used in nascent psychology.

thats the very same type of talk you get in Freud, Jung, Adler and people who still follow in that sort of personality/psychoanalytic side of psych, and mainly, the type of stuff that is today as close to psychology as Depak Chopra is to physics.

I think the issue might be the word "psychology" in general. Things like the human potential movement, the modern "self-help" movement, etc, use it to describe what they do as well, even though they are often well beyond the fringes of even the most wacko Freudian. Additionally, when I say pre-1930s, I suppose I am talking more about the ideas and conceptions of what a person's psychology is. Technically, there are still people who are considered within psychological science who believe in penis envy. Psychology would do well to jettison this stuff, but even then, anything I can find about "nascent psychology" makes it seem even less scientific than personality theory, so it seems to me like the concept comes more from things like self-help, or the human potential movement, and merely says psychology because it thinks it is describing a part of human behaviour. Rest assured, something like mind-body dualism hasn't been a concern of the science of psychology since... damn, maybe James (If we include people like Freud as a "scientist" [I don't] it might take until Skinner for dualism to be irrelevant, though, if we get to pick and choose, early psychophysicists had no concern for it and adopted close to a behavioristic approach to the "mind", in the late 1800s).

Originally posted by dadudemon
If you're right and not just extrapolating old-school psych(meaning, my understanding of the mind-body thing was off and what you say of the history is spot on), then I need to concede to Omega Vision and admit that my interpretation is actually off.

sure, saying something is a unity of the mind, body, will and emotions is language that harkens back to literally Freud, positive psychology, things like that. 1930 might not be a hard limit, but conceptualizing any behaviour in that manner does come from that era. That you might find people who still talk about it, unfortunately even under the guise of respectable psychology (personality theory, for instance, or psychoanalysis) doesn't make it a modern view, but rather emphasizes that there are still a lot of dumb people who believe crazy things, and the science of psychology needs to clean house to some degree. That being said, I don't think Dr. Grier is combing Big 5 journals, I think he is much closer to a product of the self-help type of things than to any real psych.

Originally posted by dadudemon
It should come as no shock that he thinks choice plays a large part in ones sexuality...since...he affiliates with an "ex-gay rights" group.

another clear indication he has an understanding of psychology that is outdated at best, and likely comes from no coherent understanding of psychology

Originally posted by dadudemon
I don't know how I feel about that: I am far too ignorant of ex-gays and ex-gay culture to know if he's on target or way off. That is another topic.

considering there is no meaningful psychological organization on the planet that thinks homosexuality is in any way a choice, how much more expertise would one need to have to settle your conscience?

Originally posted by dadudemon
...

Well, the fact that it was a public page aside, which kind of lays this particular scenario to rest, I think we hit on a matter that wouldn't be settled until we brought a legal team in. I tend to think that anything posted to hundreds of people isn't "private" in any sense, even if it's a specifically chosen set of people. It might be in a legal sense, but if one of those people decides to share it - a perfectly legal and reasonable response in social media, especially when the reporter didn't ask anyone to keep it a secret - it can be and will be legally public very quickly.

As for an example of a personal insult against a third party affecting a company, is it really so hard to imagine? For an example: Chik-Fil-A's CEO speaks out against something unrelated to his business - gay marriage - and people boycott their chicken. Hell, the mayor of Boston specifically denied a Chik-Fil-A franchise, citing their position on gay marriage.

More generally, public outcry can hurt any enterprise, even if the outcry is against a person or their comments, not specifically with the company in question.

man, looking through some of Grier and his contact's sites....

Christians have incredibly slick web design...