3 ms·

Yes, there is no fallacious reasoning if one takes your well-written hyperbole literally, but given that it is just exaggeration, these arguments are still inva

Yes, there is no fallacious reasoning if one takes your well-written hyperbole literally, but given that it is just exaggeration, these arguments are still invalid attacks on character. Regardless, I'm not here to defend Trump (at risk of contradicting myself, I actually agree with everything you say about his character, even if they are "ad hominem" attacks); my position is still that someone shouldn't lose their job over supporting a mainstream political candidate; that is not Democratic, and reeks of infringing on one's First Amendment rights. If we're in North Korea, yes, you should at the very least get fired (and also sentenced to hard labor) over your political views; but this is America. The one aspect of diversity that the Valley needs to work on improving is tolerance of alternative (read: mainstream Republican Party) political views -- it has only gotten worse here over time. I can't possibly see how anyone aware of these principles at stake can somehow feel justified in undermining them.

eropple 10y ago
Because they're not being undermined. No private citizen is required to associate with any other private citizen except for the provision of protected classes in the course of public service or public business (and that is not an obligation of the patron, but rather an obligation of the business; a business is required to accept the custom of a black man, a black man is not required to patronize the Klan). What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.
- Hydraulix989 10y ago
  Okay, so a public business shouldn't fire someone for having dissenting political views -- that is discrimination, and it is the same kind of discrimination as any other: racial, sexual, etc. We're not talking about Altman and Thiel's friendship here. In fact, there are laws: California The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. (^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE) So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.

eropple 10y ago

Because they're not being undermined. No private citizen is required to associate with any other private citizen except for the provision of protected classes in the course of public service or public business (and that is not an obligation of the patron, but rather an obligation of the business; a business is required to accept the custom of a black man, a black man is not required to patronize the Klan). What I am saying only has become even slightly controversial as the reactionary right has lost power and the ability to exert their desired mores in society. Political activity earns political response, and if you want to make a case for the lack of ethics of such a thing I invite you to make it instead of just claim the end result.

Hydraulix989 10y ago
Okay, so a public business shouldn't fire someone for having dissenting political views -- that is discrimination, and it is the same kind of discrimination as any other: racial, sexual, etc. We're not talking about Altman and Thiel's friendship here. In fact, there are laws: California The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. (^ note: IANAL, and this is not a legal threat against ANYONE) So it looks like the governing body of the State of California is in majority agreement with our position.