Connect with us

Culture and Religion

Why Google is right, and you should be happy

Published

on

Conservatives should take yesterday’s firing by Google of its programmer James Damore as a needed wake-up call, but in more ways than one.

The incident is already being used as evidence of corporate political intolerance. Maybe it is. But that misses several other points, all of which are much more important.

First of all, I will second (or third) the sentiment expressed this morning by both our editor Steve Berman (in The Resurgent) and National Review’s David French, that businesses have the right to fire people without running afoul of the First Amendment.

That’s more important than you realize. Imagine what would happen if businesses could not fire employees for expressing sentiments to colleagues or to customers that were harmful, say, to the company’s bottom line.

What if you ran a business and discovered that some of your workers were outspoken Marxists? And what if the performance of those workers indicated they were subtly undermining or sabotaging performance? What then? Would you be able to fire them?

Or would their political leanings — overtly hostile to the success of your company — give them “safe harbor” from a pink slip?

Would you be forced to retain them?

And how would their hardworking colleagues respond? Can you imagine how destructive these hostile workers would be to morale?

There’s more. The Google story should remind us that oversharing is, for the most part, harmful and risky. We as a society have lost our sense of (and perhaps Millennials have never been taught) boundaries. The workplace is not our home, our co-workers are not our friends — indeed, they are competitors in the same sense as a reality show competition — and our employers are not surrogate parents.

Most of all, we need to learn and remember that we work as employees for the benefit of the employer, not the other way around. We can survive and many can prosper by aligning their interests with the corporate interest; once those interests diverge, the relationship is immediately endangered.

This is not heartless or cruel. It is economically optimal. It explains companies’ difficulties in employee retention.

As for workplace discourse, we must learn that work is not home. Not even if we spend most of our waking hours in the office.

Conservatives’ problems don’t stem only from corporate managments’ ideological rigidity or a prevailing pressure (not necessarily endorsed) to conform.

Primarily, these problems are self-induced. Conservatives and indeed all independent minded thinkers — classic liberals — must now add emotional maturity to the mix.

We must realize that the workplace is not a safe space. Not for anyone, really, but not for conservatives and not for those who wish to be open about their thoughts.

The problem, then, lies in our wrong approach to work. We have made the mistake of thinking that we are entitled to fairness, to the same treatment at work irrespective of politics.

But whether others are able to “get away with it” is to miss the point. Everyone is making the mistake of treating the office space like an extension of the friendly college campus or bar scene. It just isn’t.

In short, conservatives have joined progressives in becoming way, way too comfortable in environments where it isn’t merely inappropriate, but it threatens your paycheck.

Conservatives need to readjust their expectations, not because they’re persecuted right wingers, but because the workplace is the place to make money. Not to test out your debating skills or settle an old argument.

When conservatives grow up and accept reality, they’ll stop blaming the progressives for hostile work environments.

They’ll start owning their responsibilities.

They’ll become more focused on their jobs, their careers and their own ambitions.

They’ll become indifferent to what the progressives say, think or do.

And that’s when conservatives will get ahead.

Now there’s something that will drive the social justice activists nuts.

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance?

Published

on

How likely is it that a single protein can form by chance

To really answers the question of whether life was created or came about by random chance, we need to take a mathematical look at things. It may be easier to form our opinions based on something we read in a junior high science book, but there really is more to it than the surface questions asked and answered by scientists and theologians alike.

For the faithful, it comes down to faith. For the scientific, it also comes down to faith. Whose faith is more likely to be correct?

Part of the answer can be found in this short video. Those who think there’s no faith associated with scientific theories clearly don’t understand the mathematics behind the science they claim to hold dear.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets?

Published

on

When will people be forced to apologize for anti-Christian Tweets

There’s a trend that has been growing for some time that is reaching a tipping point now. The trend is this: when someone becomes a big story in the news, their Twitter accounts are scoured from beginning to end in order to find Tweets that offend a particular group or protected class. In many cases, this offended group has been the LGBTQ comunity, such as the recent cases of Kevin Hart and Kyler Murray.

Hart was set to host the upcoming Academy Awards when it was “discovered” the comedian used anti-LGBTQ slurs in the past. He deleted the Tweets and apologized, but still felt it necessary to pull out of the Oscars after so much backlash.

Murray, the Heisman trophy winner, was forced to apologize after reports of his Tweets used the same slurs when he was 14- and 15-years-old.

Bigotry in all its forms is contemptible. But where do we draw the line between actual bigotry and unfortunate uses of words or opinions in the past that have been deemed unacceptable today?

Should President Obama (and for that matter, Hillary Clinton) be demonized by the LGBTQ community, mainstream media, and leftists for their perspectives a decade ago? Lest we forget, both announced sharp opposition to gay marriage when they were running for president in 2008. Which is worse, a potential head of state calling for marriage to be defined as being between a man and woman or a teenager in high school referring to someone as a “fag”?

Democratic politicians are apparently allowed to evolve in their beliefs, but comedians and college football players are not.

Anti-Christian Tweets

Sadly, some of the very people who demonize others on Twitter for using unacceptable terms in the past are the same people who also demonize Christians today. I’ve been combing through Tweets of many of the most outspoken proponents of LGBTQ rights, accusers of Islamophopia, and other anti-bigotry leaders. In many cases, these people who are against bigotry demonstrate their own bigotry towards the Judeo-Christian faiths without being big news stories.

I’m not posting the Tweets here. I will not participate in whataboutism, nor do I condone using someone’s past Tweets to highlight their alleged bigotry. There’s a difference between the militant and inexcusable posts by people like Louis Farrakhan and the posts be people like Murray, Hart, or the anti-Christian posts of their detractors. They might see it as okay to demonize people like Hart and Murray for their Tweets, but I will not participate in Twitter witch hunts on the opposite end of the spectrum. Both practices are wrong.

So the question really isn’t about when we start calling out anti-Christian Tweets. It’s about why we should openly debate each other’s perspectives without being condemned for our own perspectives. If someone Tweets something against the Judeo-Christian faith, I wouldn’t expect the Oscars to ban them from being their host. I would see it as an opportunity to share my own perspectives and hopefully show some who are against my faith that there’s something worth exploring.

Today, if you Tweet something deemed unacceptable by the LGBTQ community, you’re in jeopardy of losing much. If you Tweet something against the Judeo-Christian faiths, the left sees it as acceptable. Social media is the most hypocritical medium around.

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

Published

on

9 discoveries that confirm the Bible

In this extremely interesting short video detailing archaeological discoveries that confirm the historical accuracy of the Bible, the folks at World Video Bible School highlight some amazing evidence. I don’t know much about WVBS, but I can endorse this video itself.

Here’s the first of the 9 discoveries:

The Pilate Inscriptions

In 1961 in an Italian sponsored dig in Caesarea, archaeologists uncovered a stone that had a Latin inscription on it that said “Pontius Pilatus… prefect of Judea.” That Pilate is mentioned in the Gospel accounts on several occasions. You read in John 18:29:

Pilate then went out unto them, and said, What accusation bring ye against this man?

The find verifying the New Testament statement that Pilate was the prefect of Judea.

8 more

All of these discoveries are proper, indisputable archaeological finds. It’s one thing to contest the Bible’s authenticity as the Word of God, though its very presence and the takeaways we can draw from it point the faithful to the truth. However, claiming it as being historically wrong is being debunked regularly.

The authenticity of the Bible as a historical document is no longer a valid argument against it. As more archaeological evidence points to its physical truths, so too should its words and lessons be completely trustworthy to those seeking the truth.

 

 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Advertisement Donate to NOQ Report

Facebook

Twitter

Trending

Copyright © 2018 NOQ Report