Or does it just mean that no one gets fired for stating their opinions?

In the old days, "stating their opinions" at work meant someone deliberately presenting those opinions at work. The only way HR knows I have a problem with groups "X" is if I'm creating problems at work.

More and more, everything is public now. I post on Facebook(*) I had a negative encounter with someone in group "X", and someone at work presents that as who I am at work.

(*) This sort of nonsense would be one reason of many why my FB account is almost empty.

After the hysteria dies down, we find believing Kavanaugh's accusers says more about us than about him.

The same holds true with Presidents. All of the drama and hysteria leaves with him and we won't even need rose colored glasses.

The next guy will also draw Hitler comparisons and once in office won't set any death camps up.

If every GOP official is a Disney villain in office, then none of them are.

After we get another GOP president we'll find out how much of this kind of spin/thinking is Trump.

It will be very amusing if he magically transforms into "someone we could work with" a few years after he leaves office.

…yeah, she looks worse and worse.

Yes. Seven Galleons for any wand in the store is nuts... especially when he gets a copy of the Dark Lord's.

That scene was ripe for something like the following:

"Hey Bob, I know the Pottery kid is a celebrity and all that, but what happens if he can't afford a good wand?"

"...You-know-who kills or enslaves both of us?" :Gulp:

"Sale time. Seven galleons for... no, not 'any wand in the store'. Get out the special stock. He gets a wand at least as good as You-know-who."

The only thing that distinguishes him... is how much liberals hate him. Which is the whole point isn’t it?

A President Romney would have taken the office having been branded a white nationalist and deeply unethical.

Judge Kavanaugh did take his seat after having been accused of sex crimes by 5 different women. Four have since admitted the charges were manufactured and the fifth was somewhere between fact free and facts disproven.

ANY Conservative President would be hated by the liberals simply because he's not with Team Blue. You view them as Disney villains.

He broke every single one of those leg.

The religious right gave him a pass on his personal life (and personality) in exchange for a few Supremes (and other judges). That's why him banging a porn star didn't make waves. NO ONE ever thought he was a paragon of virtue. He's not a member of the religious right himself and clearly believes in nothing beyond himself and money.

However, he made a deal. He kept it. He's willing to make the same deal again. Maybe they are too. Trump will make a big deal out of "his" new list(s). Heritage and/or some other think tank will be thrilled to let him steal their homework.

You can support gay rights without being gay, trans rights without being trans and so forth. Trump supports the Right, he is not a member.

On defense he blew up a guy who needed blowing up and didn't pull us into any pointless wars or force serious cuts on the defense.

On fiscal before the virus he was handing in a large tax cut, great economic growth, and full employment. Absurdly large deficit spending even before the virus drove a truck through the budget but he'll blame the virus for that.

She’s not ever going to ‘forced’ to change, unless decides she dislikes everyone hating her.

VERY few people can live with "everyone hating her". For that matter I doubt she could live with it affecting her book sales. She could have already retired if it was about money for her.

because I’m not trying to argue he said ‘Hands up don’t shoot’ (My biggest complaint about that shooting is a) the cops harassing black people for walking down the street, and b) leaving his uncovered body in the street for so long whereas she _is_ trying to argue lies, knowingly or not.

:Amusement: That's the difference is it? The information source for "harassing black people for walking" is the same lying criminal who created the "hands up" story. Given how many ways he's been shown to be a liar, you probably shouldn't assume anything he said to be truthful even if it does fit the desired narrative.

We believe what we want to and look for "facts" which support it, even when that support comes from sources we shouldn't believe.

RE: Both big narratives (i.e. cops and trans)
I'm not going to argue the big picture narratives here, we've other threads for that. I'm not even sure we disagree much in terms of big picture.

Afaict society hasn't decided whether to accept trans yet. They're scary and rare (weak) enough that they might make a good enemy (scape goat) for groups that need that sort of thing to justify themselves. I think "rare" is the key, when the gays came out of the closet there were enough of them that they no longer made a good goat.

I feel the urge to point out some of the Clintons' various ethical adventures and see if you're going to proclaim there was nothing to see.

Seriously, my employer can fire me right now for doing any of those things.

They can, but in general employers fire people for economic reasons that are beyond the control of either the employees or the employers. This btw is why the concept of having trials and investigations before an employer is allowed to fire someone is problematic.

You are pointing out that employers can fire people and jumping to "it would therefore not be an issue if they fire people for thought crimes on a widespread basis, that could only be a force for good".

Implicit in that line of thought is "because my team will be the ones calling the shots and this kind of thing will only be used for reasonable things of which I approve".

We trying to create a world in which employees accused of bad behavior are given a fair hearing, and only the truly guilty are fired.

If we're only allowed to fire people after multiple lawyers get involved, then you're telling employers that the last thing they want to do is create a job.

C: We are trying to create a world where employers fight over employees, our goal is to maximize employment.

Jobs don't last more than a few years, so creating jobs is WAY more important than preserving the current ones.

There’s more to understanding the world than just the numbers.

True, but numbers are better because they cut through emotional distractions.

Everyone is the hero of their own tale. Everyone thinks they're wearing a white hat.

And everyone has subjects we're not rational on. Subject for which we think our feelings are facts. Then we take that stance and look for facts (or even just statements) which support them.

Some people are better than others at changing our opinions when presented with conflicting facts, but most of us aren't great when it comes to war, religion, personal relationships (i.e. sex), and politics.

She probably believes what she is saying. She presumably is wrong, but she doesn't believe that.

If and when enough of society accepts Trans, she will be forced to change her mind, shut-up, or lose sales/friends/etc. That hasn't come yet.

that doesn’t really change anything about the rate of black people being shot indiscriminately by police and the police not slightly being punished for it.

OK, full stop there. I pointed out that "hands up don't shoot" was based on a lie. You've responded by claiming the larger narrative it represents is, in your opinion, correct. So, the literal truth of "hands up" doesn't matter.

If she knows she's wrong (and she might not), she's doing the same thing you just did just with a very different larger narrative.

The cultural shift I'm talking about is "are we going to accept trans people"?

And yes, there are personal "truths" that are other people's "deliberate lies". It's sort of like how "hands up don't shoot" was a thing from BLM for quite a while even after it was clear Mike Brown was shot attacking that cop.

"Communist" also was anyone who was gay.

McCarthy also had the habit of simply lying about who did what.

Everything has to be repeatedly debated. And it’s never winnable. It’s never settled. Except it has been settled, but reality is not real anymore,

And yet we still have gay marriage when that was so impossible Obama had to run on opposing it.

These sorts of cultural shifts take decades to thrash out.

My comment is awaiting moderation but I don't understand why. No links. No profanity.

going so far as to say (on another thread) that “it’s on their culture to change to fit modern norms” or they get locked up.

I'm confused on what you think I'm defending. I was pointing out that we don't, and shouldn't excuse someone's illegal behavior because of their culture. It's on them to change, not on us to make them change.

For anyone who isn't on that other thread, "their culture" in this case was "killing your children because of their sex life" and yes, anyone doing that does need to get locked up.

...our criminal justice system is tasked with *this very thing*,

No. We do NOT arrest, imprison or kill Nazis because they're Nazis. There are acts (murder and the like) which we've outlawed.

The problem with "toxic elements" is they're not committing crimes and thus not subject to the criminal justice system.

It is not clear to me who could be trusted with the power to eliminate toxic elements from society.