TubeNet

I see your post here. Thank you for your feedback. I didn't change the name of this post James. Please read this.



https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforc ... -osc-says/" target="_blank" target="_blank

brendanige wrote:Please read this.

https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforc ... -osc-says/" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank" target="_blank

Just an FYI, the Hatch Act applies primarily to civil servants at the USG Federal level. It need not apply at state and local levels (depending on sources of funding) and certainly does not necessarily apply to private institutions of education.

ETA for clarity:

If OP is providing TubeNet as a resource for students and parents, it is a de facto endorsement of the website. If an institution objects to the content of the website endorsed, it can be grounds for questioning, reprimand, or termination. So while the owners of the site are certainly covered by the Hatch Act (per the OPM’s determination which can/will change like the direction of the wind) professionals that rely on this website may be at risk in referring to it in the future.

Thank you for you feedback.

Brendan

the fight to end racism is not a political one. it is humanitarian. refusing to engage and take a stance against racism is part of why it has been passively accepted for too long. if an institution does not want to come across as opposing racism publically for fear of retribution than that is red flag. if you are uncomfortable that your friends or colleagues or customers or employees or students or employers might be angered if you publically call for an end to racism than there is a fundamental problem.

silence is passive acceptance. taking a stance against racism and bigotry is not controversial. not taking a stance should be controversial but it isn't and that mentality needs to be challenged.

djwpe wrote:

WoodSheddin wrote:the fight to end racism is not a political one. it is humanitarian. refusing to engage and take a stance against racism is part of why it has been passively accepted for too long. if an institution does not want to come across as opposing racism publically for fear of retribution than that is red flag. if you are uncomfortable that your friends or colleagues or customers or employees or students or employers might be angered if you publically call for an end to racism than there is a fundamental problem.

Opposing racism does not require one to support a specific group of self described "trained marxists".

See? Now it is controversial politics.

i can and do take my discussion of racism and possible actions somewhere else and participate. I'm in favor of LBGT people doing as they please within the construct of the laws non-LGBT people must follow. I can and do discuss those matters elsewhere. I would like Tubenet to be apolitical because I would like a haven where I can read, share, joke and laugh about tubas and euphoniums without hearing or participating in any political discussion. There are some overlapping areas, like a city council funding or not funding performance space for groups (including tubas and euphoniums) to perform in.

I'm retired and a bum full time. I don't have to worry about an employer because I don't have one. WooHoo!

WoodSheddin wrote:the fight to end racism is not a political one. it is humanitarian. refusing to engage and take a stance against racism is part of why it has been passively accepted for too long. if an institution does not want to come across as opposing racism publically for fear of retribution than that is red flag. if you are uncomfortable that your friends or colleagues or customers or employees or students or employers might be angered if you publically call for an end to racism than there is a fundamental problem.

I have found that attempting to have a dialogue with a "true believer" is quite impossible, but sometimes I do try; it seldom works out for anyone involved and often friends are lost because of that dialogue, however civil. If someone does not know [or acknowledge] full well the facts about a cause they adhere to, such as our current example, BLM, there is an over reach to see some possible good in the cause, despite all evidence that they are violent folks who do not much care about the very people they espouse. Their objective is not what they are perceived as having--black lives enriched--but anarchy in which black lives are much more threatened than any others. Think bait and switch to the nth level.
I'm all for the altruistic goals you and your new team are shoving down our collective necks, so long as it is applied evenly and all of us are not compelled to join you in lockstep over how to achieve this goal. This is where the politicization becomes in and about none of us want that, never have, despite your attempt to find something to the contrary as a cause d'jour. This is a sad end to tubenet, sad in that there never was a problem in the first place outside of a very, very few outliers who were dealt with and thus ceased to be a problem to the many.
scottw

Black Lives Matter:

"What do we want, dead cops! When do we want it, now!"

"If we don't get what we want, we're going to burn the system down."

"...anything they want to take, take it because these businesses have insurance..."

Another thing that always comes to mind when these matters come up. In the 1964 Civil Rights act, roughly 60% of Democrats voted for the act while roughly 80% of Republicans voted for it. History shows, with few exceptions, that Black Lives have been better when Republicans are in power. I believe this is because Democrats make decision based on politics while Republicans make decisions based on results.

KorKoro

https://lifelessons.co/critical-thinkin ... rapping/#1

All conclusions are yours to draw. Or not.

WoodSheddin wrote:the fight to end racism is not a political one. it is humanitarian. refusing to engage and take a stance against racism is part of why it has been passively accepted for too long. if an institution does not want to come across as opposing racism publically for fear of retribution than that is red flag. if you are uncomfortable that your friends or colleagues or customers or employees or students or employers might be angered if you publically call for an end to racism than there is a fundamental problem.

What have those slackers at the SPLC, NAACP and ACLU been doing for the last 50 years or so??

GC wrote:https://lifelessons.co/critical-thinkin ... rapping/#1

All conclusions are yours to draw. Or not.

Most of the stuff in the middle I’d heard of.

But the Kafka Trap and the Deepity are priceless!!

Listen to this and make your own judgment. Take a close look. A parody, really? The intolerance of those who claim to be the most inclusive and tolerant is striking.



This is our moderator and the direction the forum owner has chosen to take. I am all for inclusivity but want no part of this. What a shame. Is this what you call being kind? If this causes my account to be deleted, so be it.

WoodSheddin wrote:silence is passive acceptance. taking a stance against racism and bigotry is not controversial. not taking a stance should be controversial but it isn't and that mentality needs to be challenged.

I will admit I have a problem with that way of thinking.

You're taking the position that regardless of my views - which really are nobody's business, but, I will be clear and say I oppose racism and bigotry - if I don't participate in a given way then I am somehow deficient or supportive of racism and bigotry. Pardon my french, but that's a load of crap. My views are my views. How I conduct myself is MY business and I am responsible for what I say and do. How I take my stances are, simply put, my business. Meeting the criteria of others to gain acceptance carries little to no interest for me in most cases. I'm quite satisfied with my view on the world and the good I've done for it this far in my life, and I suspect if I were to rattle off the litany of things I could mention you would most likely concur.

I'm not here on this planet to fight every battle with everyone for every cause. I could try, but, there's a lot more to life than that in my opinion. The inference that silence is passive acceptance is false and frankly it's insulting, as many blanket statements tend to be.

I understand that both you and Farah want this place to be inclusive and welcoming to people from all walks of life, which is great and I agree with that sentiment, but sometimes in trying to do one thing you achieve the opposite and don't even realize it. For example, the new logo - while colorful - is polarizing. I get many may see it as a symbol of inclusion, but, to me it's enough to put a message on the front page or on the top that says "We welcome everyone. Don't be stupid. If you are stupid we will kick you. Love, Management." A polarizing logo is a "Welcome" sign to some, and a "We're Closed" to others. It forces people to choose a side and that's not always a good thing, nor is it necessary. Sometimes people don't want to choose sides, they just want to see what horns are for sale, what mouthpiece works well on a Besson 983, or who played tuba on "Home Alone". I doubt every trip to the beach you've ever taken has been with the intention of patrolling it for trash and sick animals, although you probably would address them if presented with the opportunity. Most people do know right from wrong and conduct their lives in accordance with those ideas.

Insisting someone "speak up" or "take a stance" to further your own beliefs - even if their beliefs align ... Yeah, that's a no from me.

I fully understand this is YOUR space, and I have nothing but respect and admiration for all that you and Farah have done for our community. All I ask is that you not judge people you don't know, situations you aren't involved in, and respect the boundaries of everyone.