8 ms·

Sure, but what is the limit? To a lot of people, abortion is directly equivalent to murder. Should it be expected that they say "If you are pro-choice, hand in

by Latty 10y ago

Sure, but what is the limit? To a lot of people, abortion is directly equivalent to murder. Should it be expected that they say "If you are pro-choice, hand in your resignation?". I don't have a good answer, but just supporting a candidate seems like it should not be enough. The email, in my eyes, was threatening to someone who had voted for Trump, regardless of the policies they support him on. That feels wrong to me. I don't understand how people justified voting for Trump to themselves without holding views I find abhorrent, but I'm not omniscient. At some point you have to say that if almost half of the voting population support someone, their views are at least common enough to take pause. I honestly don't know. Before all this, I'd have agreed with you. I thought that people who would be willing to support such - in my view - horrific policies would be few and far between, and would write them off, but clearly this is more widespread, we have not progressed as far as we thought. Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers and losing staff to reject Trump's politics, but I have to ask if that's effective if this is where we are at. It's all good and well to stand up for your principles, but does it actually result in progress? Defending your employees who might suffer as a result of the policies, 100% - it would be unconscionable not to, but the way the email was set up made it more than that.

tzs 10y ago
> Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers I doubt that it is anywhere near half. GrubHub and similar services are mostly in cities. Clinton tended to do better than Trump in cities. Even in states like Texas and Florida, the major cities mostly went heavily Clinton. In Texas, the counties that Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio went Democrat by 27%, 13%, 39%, and 13% margins, respectively. Fort Worth and Corpus Christi went Republican by 9% and 2% margins, respectively. In Florida, the counties that include Miami, W. Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, and Tallahassee went Democrat by margins of 30%, 15%, 7%, and 25%, respectively. Jacksonville went Republican, by 2%.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  Offending a quarter to a third of your customers doesn't sound much better, frankly. Not to mention that you're also offending Clinton voters who don't want their workplace to be infected by politics. Despite the shrill behavior of some of her online partisans, I'm sure that's still the majority.
- Latty 10y ago
  Sure, that's true. Still, I don't think it's going to help do anything other than push the idea that white men are under attack, which is the lie that to me, seems to be fuelling the Trump train.
- kawera 10y ago
  And let's no forget that she got only half the votes because of massive voting suppression rights perpetrated by states in the last few years.
  - mzw_mzw 10y ago
    [citation needed]
    - tzs 10y ago
      http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-s... https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/will-2016-presidential-election-be-decided-voter-suppression-laws https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/will-2016-presidentia...
  - tzs 10y ago
    Question for those down voting him. Are you down voting because you don't think voting suppression was been going on for the last few years, or because you don't think it made a difference in this election and so it is not relevant to this thread?
  - Latty 10y ago
    That is definitely a huge issue. More proof that FPTP and the Electoral College are fundamentally broken and not really democracy.
    - dllthomas 10y ago
      Those issues seem orthogonal.
      - Latty 10y ago
        Voter suppression is much easier to pull off and much more effective if only two parties can ever get into power. If more parties are in the running, or parties have less dominant control, gerrymandering and suppression is much harder to do effectively.
geofft 10y ago
FWIW, you bring up a good point about abortion. I'm thinking about whether my position is consistent with my belief that you shouldn't lose your job over your position on abortion. Two partial thoughts that I'd welcome criticism on: 1. Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Pence signed and championed, gives a loud "yes" to your question. I do worry about the fact that when the left says "Racism is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society," the association of the left with liberalism and permissiveness means that there's a hesitancy to follow through with that claim, whereas the right has no hesitancy in following through with the claim "Gay marriage is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society." In aggregate, the left's moral voice is quieter and muddier. 2. There's a well-documented phenomenon where anti-abortion people think of themselves as exceptions, get an abortion, and continue to be anti-abortion. I don't understand it, but it separates getting an abortion from supporting abortion rights. I strongly believe that getting an abortion should not cause you to lose your job. I don't think I believe as strongly that about being vocally pro-choice. I think Matt Maloney was clear enough that this is about a particular belief, not about how you voted.
- Latty 10y ago
  It's definitely not an easy thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a freedom from consequence. Your two points, the first seems like a fair comparison to me. There is a line in most people's minds between policy they disagree with and things that are morally wrong. Those lines are not in the same places, so it is hard to say what is 'reasonable' to stand up for in such a way. As to your second point, I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that allowing the act is primary to allowing the speech. The latter may be necessary to ensuring the former - if you can't make a living while being pro-choice, a chilling effect will be applied, and the law eventually changed. In general, if your view is kept to yourself at work, doesn't affect your work, and you don't act on it or encourage people to, it's probably best to protect expressing it. For me here, it comes down to what is effective. My understanding of the mindset of Trump voters is that they are scared, they have been sold this lie that rights for others come at their expense. Firing Trump supporters isn't going to change that.
  - 10y ago

by Latty 10y ago

tzs 10y ago

> Maybe it's worth offending on average half of your customers I doubt that it is anywhere near half. GrubHub and similar services are mostly in cities. Clinton tended to do better than Trump in cities. Even in states like Texas and Florida, the major cities mostly went heavily Clinton. In Texas, the counties that Dallas, Houston, Austin, and San Antonio went Democrat by 27%, 13%, 39%, and 13% margins, respectively. Fort Worth and Corpus Christi went Republican by 9% and 2% margins, respectively. In Florida, the counties that include Miami, W. Palm Beach, Orlando, Tampa, and Tallahassee went Democrat by margins of 30%, 15%, 7%, and 25%, respectively. Jacksonville went Republican, by 2%.

mzw_mzw 10y ago
Offending a quarter to a third of your customers doesn't sound much better, frankly. Not to mention that you're also offending Clinton voters who don't want their workplace to be infected by politics. Despite the shrill behavior of some of her online partisans, I'm sure that's still the majority.
Latty 10y ago
Sure, that's true. Still, I don't think it's going to help do anything other than push the idea that white men are under attack, which is the lie that to me, seems to be fuelling the Trump train.
kawera 10y ago
And let's no forget that she got only half the votes because of massive voting suppression rights perpetrated by states in the last few years.
- mzw_mzw 10y ago
  [citation needed]
  - tzs 10y ago
    http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-strikes-down-north-carolina-voter-id-provision.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/30/us/federal-appeals-court-s... https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/will-2016-presidential-election-be-decided-voter-suppression-laws https://www.aclu.org/blog/speak-freely/will-2016-presidentia...
- tzs 10y ago
  Question for those down voting him. Are you down voting because you don't think voting suppression was been going on for the last few years, or because you don't think it made a difference in this election and so it is not relevant to this thread?
- Latty 10y ago
  That is definitely a huge issue. More proof that FPTP and the Electoral College are fundamentally broken and not really democracy.
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Those issues seem orthogonal.
    - Latty 10y ago
      Voter suppression is much easier to pull off and much more effective if only two parties can ever get into power. If more parties are in the running, or parties have less dominant control, gerrymandering and suppression is much harder to do effectively.

geofft 10y ago

FWIW, you bring up a good point about abortion. I'm thinking about whether my position is consistent with my belief that you shouldn't lose your job over your position on abortion. Two partial thoughts that I'd welcome criticism on: 1. Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which Pence signed and championed, gives a loud "yes" to your question. I do worry about the fact that when the left says "Racism is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society," the association of the left with liberalism and permissiveness means that there's a hesitancy to follow through with that claim, whereas the right has no hesitancy in following through with the claim "Gay marriage is so wrong that it puts you beyond the bounds of civilized society." In aggregate, the left's moral voice is quieter and muddier. 2. There's a well-documented phenomenon where anti-abortion people think of themselves as exceptions, get an abortion, and continue to be anti-abortion. I don't understand it, but it separates getting an abortion from supporting abortion rights. I strongly believe that getting an abortion should not cause you to lose your job. I don't think I believe as strongly that about being vocally pro-choice. I think Matt Maloney was clear enough that this is about a particular belief, not about how you voted.

Latty 10y ago
It's definitely not an easy thing. Freedom of speech doesn't mean a freedom from consequence. Your two points, the first seems like a fair comparison to me. There is a line in most people's minds between policy they disagree with and things that are morally wrong. Those lines are not in the same places, so it is hard to say what is 'reasonable' to stand up for in such a way. As to your second point, I think it's a little dangerous to suggest that allowing the act is primary to allowing the speech. The latter may be necessary to ensuring the former - if you can't make a living while being pro-choice, a chilling effect will be applied, and the law eventually changed. In general, if your view is kept to yourself at work, doesn't affect your work, and you don't act on it or encourage people to, it's probably best to protect expressing it. For me here, it comes down to what is effective. My understanding of the mindset of Trump voters is that they are scared, they have been sold this lie that rights for others come at their expense. Firing Trump supporters isn't going to change that.
- 10y ago