3 ms·

> What happened to our country? This is some revisionist history. At best, just rose colored glasses. 1) There are still plenty of people that think the way y

> What happened to our country? This is some revisionist history. At best, just rose colored glasses. 1) There are still plenty of people that think the way you expect a classic liberal to think. 2) Hearing about it more doesn't mean more people think that way. 3) This country has a long history of persecuting undesirables for one reason or another. Black, hippie, commie, union member. What happened here pales in comparison to our past. You also forget that hey, guess what? These employers have the same right to associate with whomever they choose. You'd take it away from them. Making everyone work in close company with folks they aren't comfortable associating with. It just so happens in this case it was due to a Facebook post. Would you be flipping out like this if it was due to water cooler comments on the job? Yeah. Perhaps check your supercharged rhetoric at the door.

Agustus 10y ago
Absolutely not. You are not allowed to fire someone based on their political beliefs, especially in California. You are forced to accept people in society regardless of your personal beliefs. Also, plenty of people is a vague term, they are less than 50% of the democratic party to put Clinton and Sanders as their representatives. The soldier who also ran was what was left of the old "liberal" party. He echoed the sentiments of 1990's Bill Clinton and he was left behind with nary a backer.
- butyouknow33 10y ago
  I wasn't exactly replying to a nuanced post. It is obvious to me you've barely researched what you said. Government and Californians are the only workers with any legal protections around political speech. But the laws are barely enforceable. Twitter can say "not a culture fit" and not have to really give any more explanation. They can say "decided to go a different way." Effectively my point stands. Companies can pick and choose who they hire. A job offer is not a contract for eternal employment. Philosophically, that is exactly how it should be. What's the point of forcing an organization to hire people they disagree with? You just flipped it from coddling one group to coddling another. And the other side will stand up and grouse. I think we really need to rethink the point of "jobs" and how people are expected to contribute in our society. Because "jobs" will be extinct. It sounds like in your second point you're talking about membership in the Democratic party. The OP was painting in broad strokes about society in general. Classical liberalism was typically a position taken regarding government's role. "Government which governs least governs best." But we're not talking about government. We're talking about a private organization and opinions of free people. There was no government oppression here. This was free agency of private citizens that created this headline. What does that even have to do with "classical liberalism"? So above all my points stand. OP was revising history to be, and his argument in general is contradictory and hypocritical.
jlarocco 10y ago
> These employers have the same right to associate with whomever they choose. You'd take it away from them. That may have been true at some point a long time ago, but it's definitely not true any more. https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopos... However, political views aren't a protected thing, but religious views are. Seems silly to me, but that's the law.
scintill76 10y ago
> It just so happens in this case it was due to a Facebook post. Would you be flipping out like this if it was due to water cooler comments on the job? He didn't say it around the water cooler; doesn't that make all the difference? He said it three years ago semi-publicly but away from work, deleted it years ago, and has put some plausible effort into moving away from the viewpoint people took offense with. In your world, we're not allowed to make political/social mistakes off the job 3 years ago, even if we change our mind afterward?! > These employers have the same right to associate with whomever they choose... Making everyone work in close company with folks they aren't comfortable associating with. I have to believe they interviewed him pretty well and liked him just fine the way he is today and in person. What evidence do you have that anyone he worked with was personally uncomfortable with him? It looks like what happened is, the mobs/journalists dug up reasons to hate his 3-years-ago Facebook persona, and Twitter exercised that "right" so they could save face. If we apply your apparent rules fairly, even Adria Richards will get fired for her own variety of "dongle" joke[1] on social media literally during that same infamous PyCon[2] 3 years ago. [1] https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 For posterity, someone tweeted "I made it to US and A. I've received my traditional TSA welcoming - having my nuts fondled." and she responded "you should put something in your pants next time...like a bunch of socks inside one...large...sock. TSA agent faint" [2] https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265576896679937 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265576896679937 "OMG! you have me blushing here at PyCon!" P.S. SJW tip: trawl those threads for anyone remotely high-profile who challenged her, so you can get them fired for misogyny or something.
- butyouknow33 10y ago
  That's a much different than what was posted by the (former) Twitter employee, and could be seen as "troll the TSA" more than a "tiny genitals" line. The person in question was much more specific with their language. But regardless. The OP was on about the erosion of "classical liberalism" in the US. Which rarely said anything about how private businesses should operate. The philosophy is largely built upon how government should govern. How is that "classical liberalism"? Which basically hues to the mantra "Government that governs least governs best." FORCING companies to hire whoever doesn't sound like small government. The other points stand as well. Waving away our awful history of mistreating one group or another, as if we were more fair or tolerant in the past. What? He seems to think so-called SJW's are growing in numbers without backing it up. More NOISE from that segment does not mean it's growing or usurping anything. And there are indeed plenty of people out there that still believe limited government is best. No one is guaranteed a job in this country. It's highly likely that Twitter did fire them over this. But it's up to them to prove it. Twitter can say "not a culture fit" or "rethinking strategy, didn't need the headcount." And regardless. As if this would be the straw that breaks the camels back and gets people SO riled up over the inequities in our society is laughable. Poor high tech worker! So oppressed. The QQ'ing is strong in this thread.

Agustus 10y ago

Absolutely not. You are not allowed to fire someone based on their political beliefs, especially in California. You are forced to accept people in society regardless of your personal beliefs. Also, plenty of people is a vague term, they are less than 50% of the democratic party to put Clinton and Sanders as their representatives. The soldier who also ran was what was left of the old "liberal" party. He echoed the sentiments of 1990's Bill Clinton and he was left behind with nary a backer.

butyouknow33 10y ago
I wasn't exactly replying to a nuanced post. It is obvious to me you've barely researched what you said. Government and Californians are the only workers with any legal protections around political speech. But the laws are barely enforceable. Twitter can say "not a culture fit" and not have to really give any more explanation. They can say "decided to go a different way." Effectively my point stands. Companies can pick and choose who they hire. A job offer is not a contract for eternal employment. Philosophically, that is exactly how it should be. What's the point of forcing an organization to hire people they disagree with? You just flipped it from coddling one group to coddling another. And the other side will stand up and grouse. I think we really need to rethink the point of "jobs" and how people are expected to contribute in our society. Because "jobs" will be extinct. It sounds like in your second point you're talking about membership in the Democratic party. The OP was painting in broad strokes about society in general. Classical liberalism was typically a position taken regarding government's role. "Government which governs least governs best." But we're not talking about government. We're talking about a private organization and opinions of free people. There was no government oppression here. This was free agency of private citizens that created this headline. What does that even have to do with "classical liberalism"? So above all my points stand. OP was revising history to be, and his argument in general is contradictory and hypocritical.

jlarocco 10y ago

> These employers have the same right to associate with whomever they choose. You'd take it away from them. That may have been true at some point a long time ago, but it's definitely not true any more. https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopost.pdf https://www.dol.gov/ofccp/regs/compliance/posters/pdf/eeopos... However, political views aren't a protected thing, but religious views are. Seems silly to me, but that's the law.

scintill76 10y ago

> It just so happens in this case it was due to a Facebook post. Would you be flipping out like this if it was due to water cooler comments on the job? He didn't say it around the water cooler; doesn't that make all the difference? He said it three years ago semi-publicly but away from work, deleted it years ago, and has put some plausible effort into moving away from the viewpoint people took offense with. In your world, we're not allowed to make political/social mistakes off the job 3 years ago, even if we change our mind afterward?! > These employers have the same right to associate with whomever they choose... Making everyone work in close company with folks they aren't comfortable associating with. I have to believe they interviewed him pretty well and liked him just fine the way he is today and in person. What evidence do you have that anyone he worked with was personally uncomfortable with him? It looks like what happened is, the mobs/journalists dug up reasons to hate his 3-years-ago Facebook persona, and Twitter exercised that "right" so they could save face. If we apply your apparent rules fairly, even Adria Richards will get fired for her own variety of "dongle" joke[1] on social media literally during that same infamous PyCon[2] 3 years ago. [1] https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265091791847425 For posterity, someone tweeted "I made it to US and A. I've received my traditional TSA welcoming - having my nuts fondled." and she responded "you should put something in your pants next time...like a bunch of socks inside one...large...sock. TSA agent faint" [2] https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265576896679937 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/312265576896679937 "OMG! you have me blushing here at PyCon!" P.S. SJW tip: trawl those threads for anyone remotely high-profile who challenged her, so you can get them fired for misogyny or something.

butyouknow33 10y ago
That's a much different than what was posted by the (former) Twitter employee, and could be seen as "troll the TSA" more than a "tiny genitals" line. The person in question was much more specific with their language. But regardless. The OP was on about the erosion of "classical liberalism" in the US. Which rarely said anything about how private businesses should operate. The philosophy is largely built upon how government should govern. How is that "classical liberalism"? Which basically hues to the mantra "Government that governs least governs best." FORCING companies to hire whoever doesn't sound like small government. The other points stand as well. Waving away our awful history of mistreating one group or another, as if we were more fair or tolerant in the past. What? He seems to think so-called SJW's are growing in numbers without backing it up. More NOISE from that segment does not mean it's growing or usurping anything. And there are indeed plenty of people out there that still believe limited government is best. No one is guaranteed a job in this country. It's highly likely that Twitter did fire them over this. But it's up to them to prove it. Twitter can say "not a culture fit" or "rethinking strategy, didn't need the headcount." And regardless. As if this would be the straw that breaks the camels back and gets people SO riled up over the inequities in our society is laughable. Poor high tech worker! So oppressed. The QQ'ing is strong in this thread.