Support NeoGAF

[MisterR]

So, nowaday's Russia, someone says stuff Putin wouldn't like, get's fired by a private company. No problem?

We're talking about two very different situations. If they are being fired because of government interference, then that is certainly a way to impede free speech. If they are fired because they make very unpopular remarks that cause a privately owned company to not have you associated with them, then that's part of the consequences of free speech. If they say something Putin doesn't like and he instructs their employer to fire them, then that's a violation of free speech. If he says something that pisses off half the population of Russia, and his company doesn't want his free speech representing them, then yes, it's fine to let him go.

 

[mckmas8808]

Sorry, still not used to the new system.



2016 was just barely two years ago, and it's involved on the project that is still not fully released. This isn't something that somebody said back in the 90s, this is the same project, same employers. I mean, clearly you understand that being racist/homophobic/misogynistic is wrong, right? That's a super basic question that I wonder about many people in this thread.


There's something about the younger generation of gamers that grew up around the time of the Breitbart/Gamergate fiasco that lost the basic idea of respect for one another.

I agree. I think we as a society are still learning that social media isn't this anonymous space that only our friends can read our words and thoughts. We share almost everything now and that's fine. Just understand that if you want to share your thoughts and opinions on everything (under your name), then expect the bad things that you do and say under your name to catch up with you.

We live in a shared society, not a vacuum. Just because you (not you Remeard) may think it's okay or funny to say something sorta racist or sexist doesn't mean your employer will see it the sameway.

 

[NickFire]

What the hell are you even talking about? There are clearly consequences for your speech. This very thread is pointing them out. You keep dreaming your pipe dream. Maybe one day you'll be able to say whatever you want with no consequences. But that will be a first.

You called someone's ignorant for believing the constitution should be interpreted differently than it currently is. I'm trying to show you how fluid those interpretations can be, and highlighting the inherent hypocrisy in saying corporations have the right to exercise their free speech by firing people for bad tatste jokes on Twitter, but not the free speech right to donate to political parties.

But really, I'm just tired of witch mobs destroying people for their sadistic pleasures while pretending they'd have some moral high ground to hurt others while claiming they are being hurt themselves. That's my main focus.

 

[MisterR]

You called someone's ignorant for believing the constitution should be interpreted differently than it currently is. I'm trying to show you how fluid those interpretations can be, and highlighting the inherent hypocrisy in saying corporations have the right to exercise their free speech by firing people for bad tatste jokes on Twitter, but not the free speech right to donate to political parties.

But really, I'm just tired of witch mobs destroying people for their sadistic pleasures while pretending they'd have some moral high ground to hurt others while claiming they are being hurt themselves. That's my main focus.

I've got some advice for you. If you have racist and sexist views, it's not a good idea to put them out there for the world to read. Companies are not going to want to be associated with you. They don't want people boycotting them and affecting their reputations. Be smart. If you have terrible views, probably best to keep them to yourself or tell some racist jokes with your like minded buddies. Social media is there for everyone to see, and there will be repercussions.

 

[llien]

We're talking about two very different situations. If they are being fired because of government interference, then that is certainly a way to impede free speech. If they are fired because they make very unpopular remarks that cause a privately owned company to not have you associated with them, then that's part of the consequences of free speech.

Agreed on that, although in my example there was no government interference, mere fear of one.

The main issue with this firing is that a number of things that he was blamed for are not "very unpopular", but merely controversial, pay gap in particular.

 

[KevinKeene]

If using the perfectly fine term 'sjw' is a fair reasin to fire someone, you and mw have a big problem.

You're definition of free speech is beyond ignorant. What free speech means is that you can't be stopped by the government from speaking freely by being put in jail or detained over speech. It doesn't mean there are no consequences for what you say.

In a time where companies hold the power moreso than governments, that's just outdated. But keep preaching free speech as if it was worth something.

 

[NickFire]

I've got some advice for you. If you have racist and sexist views, it's not a good idea to put them out there for the world to read. Companies are not going to want to be associated with you. They don't want people boycotting them and affecting their reputations. Be smart. If you have terrible views, probably best to keep them to yourself or tell some racist jokes with your like minded buddies. Social media is there for everyone to see, and there will be repercussions.

Pure deflection and cowardice. Instead of saying you are cool with punishing kids for the sins of their parents on Twitter, you pretend I don't already know everything you said is true, and dodge the question. What's the matter? Is it too hard to accept that real people who have done nothing wrong get hurt the most by witch mob tactics employed by the far left? Is that an inconvenient truth we want to pretend doesn't happen? Or are we afraid an honest response comes back to haunt us on the immigration issue? For the record, I am in favor of the dreamer kids getting to stay, becaus I don't want them hurting for the sins of their parents any more than I want kids hurting because their dad said something dumb on Twitter.

The question is about witch mobs to hurt people for wrong think. And the question is are you cool with a witch mob seeking to destroy the lives of children and spouses because the offending spouse said something in bad taste two years ago. Are you ok with those witch mob tactics? Yes or no.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

In a time where companies hold the power moreso than governments, that's just outdated. But keep preaching free speech as if it was worth something.

Outdated? They simply stated a fact. The law is the law. It's currently the law. Whether or not it needs to be changed is a completely different discussion.

 

[E.T. Waifu]

That's what you do when you don't want your reputation ruined. And i'm okay with it. Racism is never good.

 

[MisterR]

Pure deflection and cowardice. Instead of saying you are cool with punishing kids for the sins of their parents on Twitter, you pretend I don't already know everything you said is true, and dodge the question. What's the matter? Is it too hard to accept that real people who have done nothing wrong get hurt the most by witch mob tactics employed by the far left? Is that an inconvenient truth we want to pretend doesn't happen? Or are we afraid an honest response comes back to haunt us on the immigration issue? For the record, I am in favor of the dreamer kids getting to stay, becaus I don't want them hurting for the sins of their parents any more than I want kids hurting because their dad said something dumb on Twitter.

The question is about witch mobs to hurt people for wrong think. And the question is are you cool with a witch mob seeking to destroy the lives of children and spouses because the offending spouse said something in bad taste two years ago. Are you ok with those witch mob tactics? Yes or no.

Guess what, you make stupid decisions and yes it will affect your family. If you go out drunk driving tonight and get arrested, you may well get fired, that will affect your family. You punch a guy today, same deal. Actions have consequences. That includes speech that may affect your job status. That's why it's a good idea to make good decisions when it may well affect the people you love.

 

[Snorlocs]

I am not sure why it is so difficult for some people to realize that if you post stupid shit online for the world to see, someone who you do not want to see it might see it. If at any point you realize that what you post may get you in trouble then do not post it. I see posts in here angry because the guy might have a family that he needs to feed and he lost his job. That is his problem. He posted stupidity online and he now has to take responsibility. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

 

[KevinKeene]

I am not sure why it is so difficult for some people to realize that if you post stupid shit online for the world to see, someone who you do not want to see it might see it. If at any point you realize that what you post may get you in trouble then do not post it. I see posts in here angry because the guy might have a family that he needs to feed and he lost his job. That is his problem. He posted stupidity online and he now has to take responsibility. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Let's make this simple: Posting South Park-esque remarks online shouldn't get you in serious trouble. That's the kind of universal free speech that I demand.

Posting shit like you'd find on VOAT where they recently denied the Holocaust? Yeah, that should get you in trouble.

 

[Makariel]

I don't want to comment on whether his firing was warranted or not, but it seems to me as if twitter is increasingly becoming a liability with many of its users being out for blood.

As has been pointed out by others already, that's true for all social media. The only reason I have a facebook account is so that nobody else can open one in my name, pretend to be me and get me fired ;-) actually happened to a friend of mine that someone took her pictures from a different social media, opened an account with her name and pretended to be her. Never found out who it was, but facebook closed down the account of the pretender eventually.

I think a lot of people still don't realize that the social media they interact online is part of the "real world" and is not some sort of elaborate game without consequences.

 

[strange headache]

Guess what, you make stupid decisions and yes it will affect your family. If you go out drunk driving tonight and get arrested, you may well get fired, that will affect your family. You punch a guy today, same deal. Actions have consequences. That includes speech that may affect your job status.

It's quite unfair to compare tweets and expressions of opinion to drunk driving. I have yet to witness somebody die from an offensive/silly/stupid tweet, while drunk driving is the cause of many deadly accidents involving innocent traffic participants. Comparing both either attributes an exaggerated importance to tweets or banalizes drunk driving. I'm well aware that more and more social-media addicts are losing any connection to the real world, but this is just silly. Many great thinkers in the past were killed for expressing unpopular ideas and opinions, in that regard equating words to actions is much too simplistic.

You are a representative of your company when you are posting on social media.

That's something that has yet to be legally defined. Are social-media part of the public sphere and if so, which ones, or do they belong to your private sphere? While I may agree that the public sphere is subject to certain rules and obligations in relation to other people, these rules simply do not exist in your private live. Individual rights in modern democracies are the result of said distinction between public and private sphere, since modern societies are aware of the fact that part of the individual needs to stay independent from societal/political pressure in order to grant the necessary freedom to your human right to self expression. Part of the problem is that social-media are blurring the lines between both spheres.

In the direct democracies of ancient Greece, citizens basically had no individual rights and no private sphere at all since they were subject to public opinion. The collective held direct power over the lives of each individual since there were no limits to what the collective could decide. The great philosopher Socrates was put to death by such collective decision, simply because he pissed off the wrong people and opinion-leaders. History has shown that you really don't want to live in such a society.

If what you say is true, the employer would have an obligation to make abundantly clear what you're allowed to express and which views you're allowed to share. Otherwise the employee could never have any kind of job security and would need to live in constant fear of being fired for something he said, basically silencing him. Considering that your right to work is a fundamental pillar of your livelihood, such grey area simply cannot stand. I would not want to live in a society where corporations can dictate your worldview and what you're allowed to say. There's already a very worrisome trend where this is the case (e.g. Damore). Social-media lends great power to public perception and it is time that its users learn to wield that power wisely.

 

[ilfait]

The last thing we need is the government forcing businesses to employ people who hurt their business. Madness.

The theory of the employee acting "wrongly" in his free time--thus causing PR issues for businesses--is that if the business doesn't capitulate to the mob then it will be blamed for supporting the action of the employee. If by law the business were not allowed to fire an employee for legal behaviour conducted while not on the job, then a lot of that blame is alleviated. The employee will still be pestered by the mob, but his job will be in far less danger, and the business will be held far less accountable. There will still be association in some minds between the company and the employee, but that's just too bad; the company might have to deal with a few less SJW sales.

It wouldn't force anyone to employ people who've done a bad job. It's madness if you think it's right to control what your employees do and say even while they're not working.

I hate the whole concept of laws, but we still necessitate them through our tendency to unjustly infringe on the freedom of other people. If it's a law that helps to protect freedom of the individual then at least there's a chance that it's a good law.

 

[Petrae]

I am not sure why it is so difficult for some people to realize that if you post stupid shit online for the world to see, someone who you do not want to see it might see it. If at any point you realize that what you post may get you in trouble then do not post it. I see posts in here angry because the guy might have a family that he needs to feed and he lost his job. That is his problem. He posted stupidity online and he now has to take responsibility. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

Nobody forced this person to publicly post his comments for millions of people to see, with the risk of people using his comments against him. His choice, his consequences. You and you alone are ultimately responsible for your actions.

By now, people should know that social media use can get you fired. There's no excuse if they don't, and that includes thinking that it's unfair or that it won't happen to you.

It's a risk that people continue to take— which is fine, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their words and actions.

 

[MisterR]

That's something that has yet to be legally defined. Are social-media part of the public sphere and if so, which ones, or do they belong to your private sphere?

It has been legally defined. See all the people who have lost their jobs over social media posts. Social Media are part of the public sphere by definition. It's a huge public forum. It's like if you stood out on the street and told racist jokes with a bullhorn. Do you think your company would like that?

 

[Flying Toaster]

Easy solution. If you put something in writing someone is going to see it.

People can and will be offended by almost everything.

Solution: Don't write things you are afraid to say at work or in general day to day life.

 

[mckmas8808]

I am trying to remember the last time I witnessed or participated in any discussion on free speech that did not involve disparaging remarks about women and minorities.

In other words and, it seems to me that discussions concerning Free Speech only take place in defense of asshattery in the private sector.

When's the last time we read a story about someone losing their job because they were to complimentary? Would not be overly critical or condescending? Always accommodating?

On the contrary, negativity breeds negative results.

WORDS TO LIVE BY! To all the younger people here under the age 21. Please listen to Phoenix RISING.

 

[Snorlocs]

Let's make this simple: Posting South Park-esque remarks online shouldn't get you in serious trouble. That's the kind of universal free speech that I demand.

Posting shit like you'd find on VOAT where they recently denied the Holocaust? Yeah, that should get you in trouble.

South Park has a disclaimer before EVERY episode starts, because they know that what they say can offend people and they do not want to get in to trouble for their gags. South Park also gets themselves and Comedy Central in to heaps of trouble. South Park was a terrible example to use to be honest: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Park_controversies

 

[KevinKeene]

Easy solution. If you put something in writing someone is going to see it.

People can and will be offended by almost everything.

Solution: Don't write things you are afraid to say at work or in general day to day life.

The problem is the on-sided-ness of it. Someone can write 'All white men are racist' and get away with. Someone else writes a reasonable 'I wouldn't date trans women' and gets fired for being insensitive.

That's what sours all of that.

 

[ilfait]

I am not sure why it is so difficult for some people to realize that if you post stupid shit online for the world to see, someone who you do not want to see it might see it. If at any point you realize that what you post may get you in trouble then do not post it. I see posts in here angry because the guy might have a family that he needs to feed and he lost his job. That is his problem. He posted stupidity online and he now has to take responsibility. It really isn't that difficult to understand.

I think that what you're posting is stupid shit. So if I get together a mob that agrees with me, or just wants to power trip, and find out your name and where you work, it's okay if we pressure your employer to fire you.

"Anyone who has a personality and actual opinions needs to understand that unless that personality and those opinions align with the mob or are "professional" in the eyes of his SJW boss, he's expected to keep it a secret, even in his free time. Think everything's racist and sexist, love censorship and forcing political correctness on everyone and into everything? You're good. Feel free to do whatever you want. What's that? You don't agree with PC doctrine? You keep that problematic shit to yourself if you know what's good for you."

 

[gunslikewhoa]

The theory of the employee acting "wrongly" in his free time--thus causing PR issues for businesses--is that if the business doesn't capitulate to the mob then it will be blamed for supporting the action of the employee. If by law the business were not allowed to fire an employee for legal behaviour conducted while not on the job, then a lot of that blame is alleviated. The employee will still be pestered by the mob, but his job will be in far less danger, and the business will be held far less accountable. There will still be association in some minds between the company and the employee, but that's just too bad; the company might have to deal with a few less SJW sales.

And if the company wants to fire someone, they can't. The government is going to force me to continue to employ someone. Great.

It wouldn't force anyone to employ people who've done a bad job. It's madness if you think it's right to control what your employees do and say even while they're not working.

It's not my right to control what they do or say. They are free to do as they please. They just need to do as they please with the understanding that there may be consequences for their actions. I'm not putting them in jail.

I hate the whole concept of laws, but we still necessitate them through our tendency to unjustly infringe on the freedom of other people. If it's a law that helps to protect freedom of the individual then at least there's a chance that it's a good law.

You're only looking at this from one side. I'm an individual, too. What about my freedom? You want to put a law in place that requires me to provide continued employment to someone that I don't want around? Doing anything beyond leaving these decisions to the discretion of employers is madness.

 

[MisterR]

The problem is the on-sided-ness of it. Someone can write 'All white men are racist' and get away with. Someone else writes a reasonable 'I wouldn't date trans women' and gets fired for being insensitive.

That's what sours all of that.

Life is significantly easier for white men than it is for trans women. So it makes a bit more sense that statements like the ones you use would not always be treated the same way. Punching down is usually seen as a worse offense by most people. In other words, when real life is much more one sided for white men, maybe offensive statements being more one sided in favor of minorities makes sense.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

Nobody forced this person to publicly post his comments for millions of people to see, with the risk of people using his comments against him. His choice, his consequences. You and you alone are ultimately responsible for your actions.

By now, people should know that social media use can get you fired. There's no excuse if they don't, and that includes thinking that it's unfair or that it won't happen to you.

It's a risk that people continue to take— which is fine, as long as they are willing to accept the consequences of their words and actions.

AMEN

What happened to "personal responsibility"?

 

[NickFire]

Guess what, you make stupid decisions and yes it will affect your family. If you go out drunk driving tonight and get arrested, you may well get fired, that will affect your family. You punch a guy today, same deal. Actions have consequences. That includes speech that may affect your job status. That's why it's a good idea to make good decisions when it may well affect the people you love.

Putting aside the ridiculous comparisons, you are still deflecting to be honest. We all know actions have consequences - my question has been do you condone active witchunts to hurt people over historical words. But reading between the lines its clear you absolutely believe society should seek out and harshly punish children for things their parents said in poor taste a couple years ago. What a progressive, nice and compassionate way to view the world. Absolute beacon of tolerance and love for others right there.

I can only hope that our colleges return to teaching critical thinking instead of narrative shaping. Because anyone who supports these witch hunts has no credibility when arguing for the dreamers or any other cause where they call for compassion, understanding, or acting like a decent human. Zero, none, nada.

 

[Flying Toaster]

The problem is the on-sided-ness of it. Someone can write 'All white men are racist' and get away with. Someone else writes a reasonable 'I wouldn't date trans women' and gets fired for being insensitive.

That's what sours all of that.

Honestly why should or would anyone with sense write either statement on social media.

And get away with it? Seriously this is how you view the situation? If they can do x I should be able to do y?

Be respectful, be polite, be nice and always remember what you write can and will be traced back to you. This has nothing to do with who can do what and get away with how much.

Edit: I fully believe that when you publicly work for a company and say things on social media the company has a right to disagree and sever ties. I know this opinion is not highly regarded and I am also aware that it is only an opinion. What we do and say socially be it in writing, spoken word, or direct actions tie in who we are as individuals and if an employer deems said actions to be a code of conduct violation with what they stand for then they have the right to sever ties with the individual in question that violates the companies code of conduct.

As I said before I know this is just an opinion.

When did we as a society stop taking accountability for our actions?

 

[ilfait]

It's not my right to control what they do or say. They are free to do as they please. They just need to do as they please with the understanding that there may be consequences for their actions. I'm not putting them in jail.

Yes, just as they're free to not come to work in shorts and a t-shirt and not finish projects without going to jail they're free to say what they want to say while they're at home during non-working hours. For some reason they decide to finish their projects and wear a suit and tie every day. Why do you think that is? They're not going to go to jail if they don't do what you say.

You're only looking at this from one side. I'm an individual, too. What about my freedom? You want to put a law in place that requires me to provide continued employment to someone that I don't want around? Doing anything beyond leaving these decisions to the discretion of employers is madness.

There are legitimate grounds for dismissal and illegitimate grounds. Legal activity conducted by individuals during one's free time is not an ethical reason for firing someone. It's unreasonable to expect people to live as representatives of their company. Humanity's worth a lot more than that.

 

[Palliasso]

Hi everyone. Although this particular issue is technically gaming related, most arguments being presented here have nothing to do with the game Subnautica. As such I've moved this thread to Off-Topic (rather than locking it) so that the existing discussion can continue.

As always, please remember to remain civil to your fellow posters.

 

[Xaero Gravity]

It's refreshing to see an actual discussion here with both sides of the argument being represented without either sides making ridiculous accusations about the other. A far cry from oldGAF and ERA.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

I think that what you're posting is stupid shit. So if I get together a mob that agrees with me, or just wants to power trip, and find out your name and where you work, it's okay if we pressure your employer to fire you.

"Anyone who has a personality and actual opinions needs to understand that unless that personality and those opinions align with the mob or are "professional" in the eyes of his SJW boss, he's expected to keep it a secret, even in his free time. Think everything's racist and sexist, love censorship and forcing political correctness on everyone and into everything? You're good. Feel free to do whatever you want. What's that? You don't agree with PC doctrine? You keep that problematic shit to yourself if you know what's good for you."

You're trying to prevent people from being fired under a narrow set of circumstances with a law that would have wide-ranging consequences. Any new law would result in someone being screwed through unintended and unforeseen circumstances. Businesses are owned by people. These decisions need to be left up to those people.

 

[Snorlocs]

I think that what you're posting is stupid shit. So if I get together a mob that agrees with me, or just wants to power trip, and find out your name and where you work, it's okay if we pressure your employer to fire you.

"Anyone who has a personality and actual opinions needs to understand that unless that personality and those opinions align with the mob or are "professional" in the eyes of his SJW boss, he's expected to keep it a secret, even in his free time. Think everything's racist and sexist, love censorship and forcing political correctness on everyone and into everything? You're good. Feel free to do whatever you want. What's that? You don't agree with PC doctrine? You keep that problematic shit to yourself if you know what's good for you."

What you have posted in the quotes is absolutely correct. It is called social norms. If your opinion falls outside of the social norms for the area that you are in then for your own sake you need to keep those opinions to yourself. I am not entirely sure why you are having a hard time understanding as you seem to grasp the basics of it.

If you got a mob to stalk my online presence then they would have to find something that I have said that would go against social norms. If you do find something then I would have to take responsibility for what I posted online, for the whole world to see. What I am trying to say to you is that it seems that your opinions would fall outside of what society deems okay. If that is true then keep it to yourself.

Also, why is fighting for social justice a bad thing?

 

[Gormless Noodle]

It's refreshing to see an actual discussion here with both sides of the argument being represented without either sides making ridiculous accusations about the other. A far cry from oldGAF and ERA.

No kidding, normally I'd be able to tell exactly which accounts would have been added to the graveyard by now but it's actually going fine (regardless of whatever you might think of the stated opinions). Good one on the mods.

 

[ilfait]

You're trying to prevent people from being fired under a narrow set of circumstances with a law that would have wide-ranging consequences. Any new law would result in someone being screwed through unintended and unforeseen circumstances. Businesses are owned by people. These decisions need to be left up to those people.

People make serious, necessary life choices based on their employment. People have to know within reason that when they sell their house, move across the country, sometimes even to another country, decide to have kids, etc., that provided they're doing their job well, they're ensured some reasonable manner of security. At the same time, people need their own limited and precious time away from work to be their own; it's right. This is why laws for fair grounds of dismissal exist, and why they should account for things like the social media witch hunts we've been seeing.

 

[mckmas8808]

Let's make this simple: Posting South Park-esque remarks online shouldn't get you in serious trouble. That's the kind of universal free speech that I demand.
.

Why are you against free speech for corporations though?

 

[ilfait]

What you have posted in the quotes is absolutely correct. It is called social norms. If your opinion falls outside of the social norms for the area that you are in then for your own sake you need to keep those opinions to yourself. I am not entirely sure why you are having a hard time understanding as you seem to grasp the basics of it.

If you got a mob to stalk my online presence then they would have to find something that I have said that would go against social norms. If you do find something then I would have to take responsibility for what I posted online, for the whole world to see. What I am trying to say to you is that it seems that your opinions would fall outside of what society deems okay. If that is true then keep it to yourself.

Also, why is fighting for social justice a bad thing?

I understand fine, but we have an essential disagreement about the rightful degree of power that social norms should have over an individual.

SJWs don't fight for actual justice; the term's ironic. Of course I'm for real justice.

 

[Flying Toaster]

People make serious, necessary life choices based on their employment. People have to know within reason that when they sell their house, move across the country, sometimes even to another country, decide to have kids, etc., that provided they're doing their job well, they're ensured some reasonable manner of security. At the same time, people need their own limited and precious time away from work to be their own; it's right. This is why laws for fair grounds of dismissal exist, and why they should account for things like the social media witch hunts we've been seeing.

Social media is not the same as a small intimate space such as your home or a group of friends. Social media should not be seen as such. It is an outlet that the entire world can see and therefore statements and conduct on social media should be looked at differently then private space.

 

[ilfait]

Social media is not the same as a small intimate space such as your home or a group of friends. Social media should not be seen as such. It is an outlet that the entire world can see and therefore statements and conduct on social media should be looked at differently then private space.

It's not only important for the speaker to freely express himself over social media, but it's also important for society that he does. If only the opinions that won't get you in trouble with PC mobs are ever expressed in public, that hurts everyone.

 

[Mahadev]

You're definition of free speech is beyond ignorant. What free speech means is that you can't be stopped by the government from speaking freely by being put in jail or detained over speech. It doesn't mean there are no consequences for what you say.

No, just no, you're fundamentally misunderstanding what free speech is. Free speech isn't just a right given by the government it's also a principle.

It could and should also be argued that when free speech was being legislated corporations weren't the giant monstrosities that control every facet of our lives. That power can and is being abused so the law should take into count these new changes regarding free speech and other rights.

 

[InterMusketeer]

On the contrary, negativity breeds negative results.

What's negative or negativity depends on each individual's perspective. Banning grid girls is positive for angry authoritarian feminists who call these people dumb broads, it's negativity aimed at those who lost their job.

 

[Phoenix RISING]

What's negative or negativity depends on each individual's perspective. Banning grid girls is positive for angry authoritarian feminists who call these people dumb broads, it's negativity aimed at those who lost their job.

The tone of your post is indicative of precisely what I was talking about.

 

[strange headache]

Life is significantly easier for white men than it is for trans women. So it makes a bit more sense that statements like the ones you use would not always be treated the same way. Punching down is usually seen as a worse offense by most people. In other words, when real life is much more one sided for white men, maybe offensive statements being more one sided in favor of minorities makes sense.

Not only are your hasty generalizations a logical fallacy, but I also find them rather offensive and borderline... racist/sexist. Yet here I am defending your right to express your views, no matter how wrong I think they are. Besides, even IF someone has it 'easier', that doesn't mean that he doesn't deserve the same rights.

It has been legally defined. See all the people who have lost their jobs over social media posts. Social Media are part of the public sphere by definition. It's a huge public forum.

Only because companies have gotten away with it, doesn't make it right or even legal. It only means that people weren't able to sue. As far as I'm aware, there is no legal framework, written in law, regulating these kinds of situations. Only because social-media has the word 'social' in it, doesn't mean that it is inherently public. Social networks also exist in the private sphere (e.g. friends, family and other relatives) and the social-media platforms differ vastly in their functionality. While Facebook puts an emphasis on privacy through its 'friend and private group functionality', Twitter on the other hand is much more public. Both are not equal and putting all social-media squarely in the realm of the public is overly simplistic. Who is allowed to determine what is and isn't allowed to be posted on social-media? Such institution would hold tremendous power akin to authoritarian regimes.

Businesses are owned by people. These decisions need to be left up to those people.

Businesses also put profit above everything else, I would not trust them so eagerly in their decision-making. Worker-unions, financial and work-related regulations exist for a reason.

 

[InterMusketeer]

The tone of your post is indicative of precisely what I was talking about.

It's wrong of me to reference angry feminists who are happy to take other people's jobs away? Who don't mind calling those girls all kinds of awful names?

 

[TheMikado]

There is a good chance their could be legal action against the employer as it seems he may be considered a California employee.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

People make serious, necessary life choices based on their employment. People have to know within reason that when they sell their house, move across the country, sometimes even to another country, decide to have kids, etc., that provided they're doing their job well, they're ensured some reasonable manner of security. At the same time, people need their own limited and precious time away from work to be their own; it's right. This is why laws for fair grounds of dismissal exist, and why they should account for things like the social media witch hunts we've been seeing.

Again, you're only looking at this from one side. This isn't all about megacorp Apple/Google/Facebook taking someone's livelihood for spitting on the sidewalk.

Let's talk about serious life choices. I started a small business with every penny I could get my hands on roughly two years ago. I currently have six employees. Two of them made more money than I did last year while working far less. I expect that to change in the next three to five years. I value each of my employees greatly. However, if any of them go off and do or say anything that somehow harms my business in a tangible way and takes food off my family's table, I'm going to have a decision to make. There are many circumstances under which I can envision myself standing up for an employee but, again, that decision should be MINE. There are millions of small business owners like me. The government needs to stay out of our business, literally and figuratively.

Outrage culture and the lynch mob mentality it creates disgusts me. This is about much more than that, though. I employ responsible adults. Adults understand that life isn't fair and that actions have consequences, 24/7. If they do or say something that somehow puts me in a 'me or them' situation, I am under no obligation to put myself, my other employees, and my family through any amount of hardship, simply because I'm the boss.

 

[KevinKeene]

Life is significantly easier for white men than it is for trans women. So it makes a bit more sense that statements like the ones you use would not always be treated the same way. Punching down is usually seen as a worse offense by most people. In other words, when real life is much more one sided for white men, maybe offensive statements being more one sided in favor of minorities makes sense.

Life isn't statistics. Statistically, white men have it easer. Individually, that's not true. Just ask all the bottom-feeder white people in rural America. Ask east-europeans. Living by the credo of 'someone has it worse than you' is not a good one.

And to get back to my two examples: we can agree that one is hateful while the other is perfectly reasonable, right?

Why are you against free speech for corporations though?

Companies can say whatever they want to. It's when they take it beyond words. Just have them say 'our employee Bobby might be an asshole, but he does a good job. His words are his only. Bye'.

 

[Jon Neu]

Dude definitely should have been fired. His views would clearly make any woman or person of color working with him uncomfortable. People should stop acting like they have a right to employment despite toxic views.



I'm baffled that you don't understand that racist and sexist views are harmful to society.

I'm baffled that you think harassing and baning people from society based on your own arbitrary political correctness rules it's good.

You don't seem like a good person at all if you are so authoritarian towards different ideas.

The funny thing is: nobody bans SJWs for their toxic ideas and more important: their toxic actions. And I think it's far more baneable the notion that being a white male makes me a racist and my opinion don't valid like SJW claim, than saying that the recent pression to have "inclusiveness" in everything is ridiculous or that the wage gap is a myth.

 

[ilfait]

... Adults understand that life isn't fair and that actions have consequences, 24/7.

What the consequences should be for the actions taken during a portion of those 24 hours is where I disagree with you. In my view you deem it right to have an unreasonable amount of power over the lives of your employees.

I get where you're coming from, and I wasn't intentionally implying megacorp when I talked about businesses.

 

[gunslikewhoa]

Businesses also put profit above everything else, I would not trust them so eagerly in their decision-making. Worker-unions, financial and work-related regulations exist for a reason.

Again, most businesses are not giant corporations. I don't know who or what you're envisioning as 'them.'

 

[gunslikewhoa]

What the consequences should be for the actions taken during a portion of those 24 hours is where I disagree with you. In my view you deem it right to have an unreasonable amount of power over the lives of your employees.

I get where you're coming from, and I wasn't intentionally implying megacorp when I talked about businesses.

I have no idea how in the world me wanting to maintain the right to fire an employee who harms my business is wanting an unreasonable amount of power.

What if I start getting phone calls and emails on Monday complaining about one of my employees being shown on the local news at a KKK rally this weekend? What if a client calls and threatens to pull their business? What if it's my biggest client?

Each situation will be unique. The severity of the actions of each employee and the consequences faced by their employer will be different every single time. There is no way to come up with a law that is going to make the outcome of every instance 'better.'