4 ms·

Your last line invalidates everything you just said. The point is not whether he is deemed unpopular or takes a risk....the idea is that the ability to have th

Your last line invalidates everything you just said. The point is not whether he is deemed unpopular or takes a risk....the idea is that the ability to have that conversation should be honored. It is a debate and if there is an argument to be made, let it be made. If the majority disagree that is their right but respecting the fact someone has a differing opinion is the point. "Great minds think alike....lesser minds seldom differ". Let's take your statement and apply it to something else. Are you indicating the early women of the #MeToo movement got what they deserved for speaking up about the disgusting acts committed against them in the early days? The ones whose careers were destroyed? This cuts both ways and what we are looking for is balance.

AsyncAwait 6y ago
You seem to be attacking an argument I did not make. I agree that the ability to have a conversation should be honored by the broader society, hence why I dislike Twitter outrage culture. This is separate from whether there would be consequences for your employment at a company wishing to minimize negative PR around itself. So to reiterate, his ability to have the conversation outside of work should absolutely be tolerated and protected. Within a work environment however, it is currently unreasonable to expect the same free speech rights as one is guaranteed from the state, regardless of my opinion that this should not be the case. Therefore getting dismissed should not be a surprising outcome.