3 ms·

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 regar

by 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.

by Agustus 10y ago

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.