I was confused too at first; there's two quotes, but only the first one is reproduced in the QZ article. The second one, more tinged with frustration and denig

I was confused too at first; there's two quotes, but only the first one is reproduced in the QZ article. The second one, more tinged with frustration and denigrating language, is not in the QZ article, but is quoted in the TechCrunch article linked form that one. But, might I ask, why are we so intent on firing people immediately when stuff from the past is dug up? Should they not be given a chance to explain themselves, apologize, or perhaps even claim to stand by the sentiment they expressed? I can understand this practice for certain very high-profile figures like celebrity endorsements, models, CEOs; situations where there's usually a clause in their contract that 'negative publicity' they incur that's affects the sponsor by association, but for (relatively) average people, this may just produce a chilling effect -- many claim it already has.