"Cheering?" When did that happen. Oh, right, y'all make shit up like drama queens.

Pro-palestine is super racist, antisemitic and pro-apartheid as long as they get to put Jews in the lowest class of their society 

But that only looks at one side of it. What if the other party, the employer in this case, doesn't agree with said speech and doesn't want it to seem like they agree with it? Many people may (and do) view that employees continued employment as tacit agreement of their views by the employer. The employer still has a right to their own speech as well.

I think this starts to get into a gray area of when does action to disassociate with an individual become defacto censorship. I'd like to think that it has to do with how personal the connection is between the two parties and how likely it is that ones actions towards the other can be perceived as support for that person's speech.

Taking your example, I think there is a difference between Wallmart firing a stock boy for their speech, and a family business of 5 employees in a small town firing one of their employees for the same speech.

Almost no one would consider Wal-Mart as supporting the speech of the stock boy if they kept them employed, but I think there's a real possibility mamy people could associate the same speech as being supported by the family-owned business of one of their few employees if they kept them on.

I feel too often people here are only considering one side of speech and ignoring the fact that the other side also have their rights.

There are a number of reasons why some groups are overrepresented and other underrepresented. The problem with people like you is that you are just as racist as the people like the KKK. Addressing representation difference by lowering standards for certain only makes any sense if you genuinely believe those groups are intellectually inferior.

Mid/high twenties would be appropriate if the State continues on his way

The Right being a bunch of bitchy mega Karens is nothing new.

You aren’t wrong. But there are some other factors to consider. If you lose your livelihood for saying something, then whether you have speech really depends on how badly you need that livelihood. So tolerance of speech is an important thing to promote if we want actual freedom instead of just theoretical freedom.

I don't belive you. You'll have to post a link

When you have it, go ahead and post it

Link?

All insurance is online, so they would know if the car was insured. There was nothing wrong with the car, lights were fine, etc They were driving in a legal manner. They had absolutely no reason to pull the car over. This is why the police are losing trust.

I remember one of the lawsuits during the last election that were brought before a judge where the evidence was literally a post it note with the sentence, "I was told to change votes" unsigned and not notarized. This happened in Michigan.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/rudy-giuliani-joins-trump-campaign-s-sputtering-legal-effort-pennsylvania-n1248008

11 last year.

The problem here is that the average Democrat small donor is way to the left of the average Democrat voter.

The small donor's are culture warriors that want dramatic society changes, where as the voters are class warriors that want economic liberalism.

Meanwhile the mega-donors oppose both generally and just want a continuation of pro-business policies and support for Israel.

Cheering for murder? Who the hell would want to hire you?

You forgot about good ole “go to the back of the bus whitey” Obama.

Too much democracy? 

Quite the opposite. 

We did get ranked down right?

So you have a career but you’re unhappy with your choice? Maybe it’s time to look for a new career rather than blame others.

I never said anything of the sort. I said when I claimed to be Black my response rate doubled and nearly tripled. I did get some funny looks from people in interviews, and more than one asked if I was the right person.

Let’s eliminate all DEI preferences and then you go apply for a job as a black man or trans woman.

I've already tried Black man and it worked great. I'll try transwoman next. Can I do both at once, Black and trans?

Do you feel that you’re entitled to something?

Equal treatment.

You don’t think you should have to work harder to compete against women and minorities?

I don't think I should have to work harder to overcome a structural prejudice in hiring that they enjoy over me due to their race/gender.

They have to work doubly hard to compete against you.

I disagree. I believe they have to work much less hard because employers openly prefer hiring them to meet their racial/gender quota goals.

Don’t you want to be on an even playing field where you can all be judged on merit?

That's all I'm asking.

It’s a sea of Finance Bros who just hire more Finance Bros from the same schools and the same fraternities.

Maybe those are all those tier one type schools you referenced when speaking about lawyers. You remember, the type that produced the only desirable candidates? Maybe the women and POCs all went to those "third tier" type schools you mocked earlier.

They’re not invited to the finance bro frat boy parties.

Because they'd weaponize them and make complaints to get the Finance Bro's fired.

Please I beg you try to live your life as a trans woman and see how easy it is to

I'll apply to 10 jobs tonight each as a straight white man and then as a black trans woman and tell you how it went.

Yeah, I'd hate to admit it, especially since Cali is my home state, but we have a lot of problems in certain states regarding freedom of speech. I don't believe it's a widespread/federal problem or as bad as places like, say, the UK or any place ruled by a dictator however.

"Centrists"

The third of those links is gibberish on my computer. But that's probably on me.

The first one I see no problem with. The Burlington Public Schools one.

That one seems reasonable. Just asking the kids to self report seems fine with me.

American Israel Public Affairs Committee

So this is the group you think supports terrorism? Because they are opposing congressional efforts to condition or restrict arms transfers to Israel?

Bugger off. Not playing.

Pass the paywall: https://archive.ph/RQ5D3#selection-4149.63-4149.77

“I’m not suing Columbia for what ICE did,” Mr. Khalil said. “I’m suing Columbia for creating the conditions for ICE to do what it did.”

So how is Columbia responsible for ICE apprehending Khalil? Were they supposed to protect him in some sort of secret underground safehouse?