4 ms·

> 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

> 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.
- scintill76 10y ago
  The point about Ms. Richards' posts is that, even she who thinks dick jokes at work are a fireable offense, has made them "at home." You and she are both right (perhaps to different degrees, in my mind) that doing it at the water cooler or a professional conference are inappropriate. Unlike you though, she seems to feel that doing it "at home" (or on her personal Twitter) is OK. You seem to think it would be perfectly acceptable if one day enough people get huffy about that post and she gets fired or otherwise extralegally punished because of it. We shouldn't conflate government vs. personal liberal behavior. No, the government shouldn't force companies to hire/retain people who have offensive political opinions. But yes, the public and the people in the companies should be more liberal and tolerant of employees who made offensive political statements 3 years ago, in a non-professional context. The only reason it could have any sort of effect on his ability to do that job, is because people might be determined to punish him and would apply leverage like the threat of boycotts against Twitter. Which, yeah, is their right, but does it really solve anything? I agree her tweets and this ex-Twitter guy's are different in offense-levels, but when you're satisfying the online mobs or PR advisors, our individual opinions don't matter much. > 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 same process that would dig up years-old political posts made by privileged white guys, will dig up the evidence of a secret sexual orientation or gender identity, class/ethnic differences, religion, etc. Your "awful history of mistreating one group or another" will continue as long as we tolerate and encourage this sort of prying into people's lives and punishing them for what we found. No "group" can be mistreated if we collectively refused to allow the would-be bullies to categorize people, right? It shouldn't matter how sympathetic or not we are with today's victim, or whether the type of persecution they're receiving is less severe than what happened in the past. We should always be striving for more equality and less persecution of any kind, right?

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.

scintill76 10y ago
The point about Ms. Richards' posts is that, even she who thinks dick jokes at work are a fireable offense, has made them "at home." You and she are both right (perhaps to different degrees, in my mind) that doing it at the water cooler or a professional conference are inappropriate. Unlike you though, she seems to feel that doing it "at home" (or on her personal Twitter) is OK. You seem to think it would be perfectly acceptable if one day enough people get huffy about that post and she gets fired or otherwise extralegally punished because of it. We shouldn't conflate government vs. personal liberal behavior. No, the government shouldn't force companies to hire/retain people who have offensive political opinions. But yes, the public and the people in the companies should be more liberal and tolerant of employees who made offensive political statements 3 years ago, in a non-professional context. The only reason it could have any sort of effect on his ability to do that job, is because people might be determined to punish him and would apply leverage like the threat of boycotts against Twitter. Which, yeah, is their right, but does it really solve anything? I agree her tweets and this ex-Twitter guy's are different in offense-levels, but when you're satisfying the online mobs or PR advisors, our individual opinions don't matter much. > 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 same process that would dig up years-old political posts made by privileged white guys, will dig up the evidence of a secret sexual orientation or gender identity, class/ethnic differences, religion, etc. Your "awful history of mistreating one group or another" will continue as long as we tolerate and encourage this sort of prying into people's lives and punishing them for what we found. No "group" can be mistreated if we collectively refused to allow the would-be bullies to categorize people, right? It shouldn't matter how sympathetic or not we are with today's victim, or whether the type of persecution they're receiving is less severe than what happened in the past. We should always be striving for more equality and less persecution of any kind, right?