6 ms·

> The survey found that many Americans think a person’s private political donations should impact their employment. Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would su

> The survey found that many Americans think a person’s private political donations should impact their employment. Nearly a quarter (22%) of Americans would support firing a business executive who personally donates to Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s campaign. Even more, 31% support firing a business executive who donates to Donald Trump’s re‐ election campaign. Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Later in the post it says this figure rises to 71% of people under 30. I've always wondered how far this extends in the minds of people okay with this. If they found out in a year or two that someone donated to trump's campaign, does that justify firing too? I imagine this dystopia where someone gets fired for a donation, only for their new employer to find out about the donation and fire them too, and so on, leaving them either unemployable, or dividing employment along party lines. ------- edit: Yes, it crossed my mind that we're assuming these are disjoint groups. We might be double counting the intersection of the two groups. The true total is the percent listed above minus the percent who support firing a Trump donor while also wanting to fire a Biden donor. I can't imagine the intersection being significant, so I left it out. I expect these figures are approximately accurate if the survey is accurate.

dmurray 6y ago
Hopefully some of those who support firing the executive have enough moral compass to support the firer regardless of what political views the firee expressed. It might be 31%, not 53%.
- baddox 6y ago
  Why would you hope for that? Do you think there is no way to distinguish any qualities of different political views and that they are all equivalent?
  - dmurray 6y ago
    No, but I find "businesses should be allowed fire people they disagree with" a more tolerable position than "businesses should be allowed fire people I disagree with". My conclusion above is independent of my own political views. Supposing I were a fervent Trump supporter, I should hope in that case that the Biden-firers are mostly non-partisan supporters of right-to-work laws rather than haters of my guy. Not saying I'd expect that to be true, just that I'd prefer it.
- pessimizer 6y ago
  That's a libertarian moral compass, not a general moral compass. Though I think people should be imprisoned for murder, it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't think people should be imprisoned for jaywalking. I don't have to support prison no matter what crime is committed.
  - dmurray 6y ago
    Well, I consider that for at least one of the candidates, donating to him is not abhorrent enough to meet my bar for "this political speech should be censored". I'd have trouble taking seriously anyone who thought that both candidates were abhorrent enough to favour firing their supporters on ideological grounds. Allowing businesses to fire people who don't agree with them is much more acceptable to me than that.
wincy 6y ago
Palmer Luckey, the young founder of Oculus had his future career basically ruined for putting up a Pro-Trump billboard, if I recall. It’s terrifying, and there’s no winning stating any political opinions at work. It’s really sad because I feel like I can’t talk about anything of substance or interesting with coworkers aside from a few people whom I’ve known a long time and know they’re accepting of me even if they disagree.
- justanotheranon 6y ago
  the Left power structure has convinced 50% of America that Trump is on the verge of installing the Fourth Reich and opening the concentration camps. the Right powerstructure has convinced 50% of Americans that Biden will be the re-animated corpse of Stalin, and that he will sieze all private property and throw us all in gulags. the net effect of this hyperpartisan polarization driven by fake news filter bubbles is that none of us can have a plain old reasonable discussion with each other, and agree to disagree about certain fundamentals, while finding a practical compromise going foward. being forced into being an extremist foot soldier of either Party or risk being destroyed by the partisans of the other Party is the worst lose-lose outcome of Prisoner's Dilemma. i think the Deep State wants us divided and at each other's throats so that we don't team up and topple them.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - pnw_hazor 6y ago
    Hyper-politicization which mostly comes from the left, is a marxist tactic related to identifying and destroying all things/persons that are problematic. This tactic is designed to weaken societal bonds in general and to target people or institutions that may get in the way of installing communism.
Borealid 6y ago
You cannot add the percentages like that because they may overlap. Some percentage of people can support firing an executive who donates to either campaign.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
remote_phone 6y ago
I bought a Trump bumper sticker way back when he was still considered a joke. I thought it would be a fun souvenir for later on. The idea I could be “cancelled” because of something like this is ridiculous. This is why courts of law you are deemed “innocent before proven guilty”. I can’t believe we as a society are going through the same mistakes hundreds of years later. The US isn’t a first world country anymore, it is devolving into a political and cultural mess.
- wry_discontent 6y ago
  Oh god, I did the same thing with a shirt! I eventually threw it out, after I found it in a closet. Not cause I thought I'd get cancelled, just cause it was gross.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ghaff 6y ago
Brendan Eich was ousted at Mozilla (after considerable pressure) for donating to a congressional candidate and an associated proposition. And I think you'll find plenty of people here who support that ousting given that the proposition was in support of banning same-sex marriage. Presumably there is some line that many of us would agree you can't cross but opinions will differ on where and what the line is.
api 6y ago
We gave up attempting to actually find workable compromise solutions to problems. Instead we just polarize and scream.
Lammy 6y ago
It happened in 2014 to Brendan Eich for a donation he made in 2008 to California Prop 8.
aahhahahaaa 6y ago
It's troublesome, but I find it relatable if you boil things down to strong ideologies and hyperbole which is a lot of the problem with our current state of political discourse. For example, it might be your stance that all Trump supporters are racist. Would I hire someone who was openly racist? Absolutely not. Is the reality that all Trump supporters are racists? No, probably not. A counter-example, you believe that abortion is murder. Would you hire someone who supports murder? absolutely not. Is abortion murder? Not definitively. It depends on your personal outlook. Hiring/firing is just not an objective process anywhere, and you're going to be subject to the personal biases of the boss... and we're in particularly biased times. On the bright side, I suspect historical numbers would be worse... and at least it's not a civil war.
baddox 6y ago
> Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies and actions are (by your own definition of "bad")? Or do you just think that, right now, no major candidate is "bad enough" that you would advocate firing someone for supporting that candidate?
- Udik 6y ago
  > Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies are Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political choice?
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    So even if someone is a literal neo-Nazi who supports killing all the Jews, imprisoning gay people, and enslaving black people, donating to such a person's candidacy isn't disqualifying in terms of the basic character one might expect (or at least hope for) of someone leading a company? I don't see how an endorsement of a vile racist couldn't be seen as disqualifying for positions of authority.
    - Udik 6y ago
      I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
lostmsu 6y ago
Thinking about it this is not surprising. Most people dream about being at high-positioned jobs/top ranking politicians. Political views is just a noticable part of stuff. Along with perceived incompetency, clan component of relationships (can't find English term for свояченичество), etc. that number perfectly fits into the picture to explain how we justify that dream.
wry_discontent 6y ago
I wouldn't support firing somebody for supporting Trump, but I can definitely understand the sentiment. Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color.
- 2020views 6y ago
  And right here, you've exposed yourself as a racist. Are you a 'person of color'? You're presuming to speak for all of them and can't imagine anyone would not share your same political views. Worse, that based on their skin color they must act as some homogeneous group.
  - wry_discontent 6y ago
    Citation needed. I didn't do any of that. It's kinda weird to me that you think that at all summarizes what I wrote.
    - 2020views 6y ago
      > "Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color." So tell me then, why do you think someone supporting Trump "would not go over well" with "employees of color". Your words. Please, tell me more about how 'employees of color' think
      - wry_discontent 6y ago
        Is it really controversial to say that people of color don't like racism? I guess I do hold controversial opinions. Please don't cancel me, 2020views.
anotherman554 6y ago
No, the question was about business executives. So among other things you can't say "53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign" since that wasn't the question, it was about business executives. I'm not sure why it was phrased that way. It seems to be hinting at wealthy people controlling the outcome of elections.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I think it's more that business executives, to a greater degree than people in the trenches, are faces of the company. Being a known supporter of a political candidate who is vilified among the people who buy from you or who you otherwise depend upon for support and cooperation can be a problem.
renewiltord 6y ago
Sure, I support the right of people to do both of those. I'll compress the moral argument: A: Support for liberty means I don't want to restrict who works with whom. B: Veil of Ignorance means I don't want circumstances out of someone's control to result in use of A to discriminate in hire/fire. C: Individual freedom is important. D: Societal success is important. The nuance is not quick-expressible in text, but that's the short form. I believe principles are only useful if they lead to desirable outcomes, so I have no problem special-casing exemptions to these, but I don't think political opinion is worth making a protected hiring class. This is a point where I disagree with California employment law (which does make political affiliation a protected class) and agree with Federal employment law which is more circumspect in its. On the other hand, I wouldn't fire a person for political affiliation, generally. If it would almost certainly sink my business, then I would.

dmurray 6y ago

Hopefully some of those who support firing the executive have enough moral compass to support the firer regardless of what political views the firee expressed. It might be 31%, not 53%.

baddox 6y ago
Why would you hope for that? Do you think there is no way to distinguish any qualities of different political views and that they are all equivalent?
- dmurray 6y ago
  No, but I find "businesses should be allowed fire people they disagree with" a more tolerable position than "businesses should be allowed fire people I disagree with". My conclusion above is independent of my own political views. Supposing I were a fervent Trump supporter, I should hope in that case that the Biden-firers are mostly non-partisan supporters of right-to-work laws rather than haters of my guy. Not saying I'd expect that to be true, just that I'd prefer it.
pessimizer 6y ago
That's a libertarian moral compass, not a general moral compass. Though I think people should be imprisoned for murder, it doesn't make me a hypocrite if I don't think people should be imprisoned for jaywalking. I don't have to support prison no matter what crime is committed.
- dmurray 6y ago
  Well, I consider that for at least one of the candidates, donating to him is not abhorrent enough to meet my bar for "this political speech should be censored". I'd have trouble taking seriously anyone who thought that both candidates were abhorrent enough to favour firing their supporters on ideological grounds. Allowing businesses to fire people who don't agree with them is much more acceptable to me than that.

wincy 6y ago

Palmer Luckey, the young founder of Oculus had his future career basically ruined for putting up a Pro-Trump billboard, if I recall. It’s terrifying, and there’s no winning stating any political opinions at work. It’s really sad because I feel like I can’t talk about anything of substance or interesting with coworkers aside from a few people whom I’ve known a long time and know they’re accepting of me even if they disagree.

justanotheranon 6y ago
the Left power structure has convinced 50% of America that Trump is on the verge of installing the Fourth Reich and opening the concentration camps. the Right powerstructure has convinced 50% of Americans that Biden will be the re-animated corpse of Stalin, and that he will sieze all private property and throw us all in gulags. the net effect of this hyperpartisan polarization driven by fake news filter bubbles is that none of us can have a plain old reasonable discussion with each other, and agree to disagree about certain fundamentals, while finding a practical compromise going foward. being forced into being an extremist foot soldier of either Party or risk being destroyed by the partisans of the other Party is the worst lose-lose outcome of Prisoner's Dilemma. i think the Deep State wants us divided and at each other's throats so that we don't team up and topple them.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- pnw_hazor 6y ago
  Hyper-politicization which mostly comes from the left, is a marxist tactic related to identifying and destroying all things/persons that are problematic. This tactic is designed to weaken societal bonds in general and to target people or institutions that may get in the way of installing communism.

Borealid 6y ago

You cannot add the percentages like that because they may overlap. Some percentage of people can support firing an executive who donates to either campaign.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

remote_phone 6y ago

I bought a Trump bumper sticker way back when he was still considered a joke. I thought it would be a fun souvenir for later on. The idea I could be “cancelled” because of something like this is ridiculous. This is why courts of law you are deemed “innocent before proven guilty”. I can’t believe we as a society are going through the same mistakes hundreds of years later. The US isn’t a first world country anymore, it is devolving into a political and cultural mess.

wry_discontent 6y ago
Oh god, I did the same thing with a shirt! I eventually threw it out, after I found it in a closet. Not cause I thought I'd get cancelled, just cause it was gross.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ghaff 6y ago

Brendan Eich was ousted at Mozilla (after considerable pressure) for donating to a congressional candidate and an associated proposition. And I think you'll find plenty of people here who support that ousting given that the proposition was in support of banning same-sex marriage. Presumably there is some line that many of us would agree you can't cross but opinions will differ on where and what the line is.

api 6y ago

We gave up attempting to actually find workable compromise solutions to problems. Instead we just polarize and scream.

Lammy 6y ago

It happened in 2014 to Brendan Eich for a donation he made in 2008 to California Prop 8.

aahhahahaaa 6y ago

It's troublesome, but I find it relatable if you boil things down to strong ideologies and hyperbole which is a lot of the problem with our current state of political discourse. For example, it might be your stance that all Trump supporters are racist. Would I hire someone who was openly racist? Absolutely not. Is the reality that all Trump supporters are racists? No, probably not. A counter-example, you believe that abortion is murder. Would you hire someone who supports murder? absolutely not. Is abortion murder? Not definitively. It depends on your personal outlook. Hiring/firing is just not an objective process anywhere, and you're going to be subject to the personal biases of the boss... and we're in particularly biased times. On the bright side, I suspect historical numbers would be worse... and at least it's not a civil war.

baddox 6y ago

> Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies and actions are (by your own definition of "bad")? Or do you just think that, right now, no major candidate is "bad enough" that you would advocate firing someone for supporting that candidate?

Udik 6y ago
> Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies are Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political choice?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  So even if someone is a literal neo-Nazi who supports killing all the Jews, imprisoning gay people, and enslaving black people, donating to such a person's candidacy isn't disqualifying in terms of the basic character one might expect (or at least hope for) of someone leading a company? I don't see how an endorsement of a vile racist couldn't be seen as disqualifying for positions of authority.
  - Udik 6y ago
    I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago

lostmsu 6y ago

Thinking about it this is not surprising. Most people dream about being at high-positioned jobs/top ranking politicians. Political views is just a noticable part of stuff. Along with perceived incompetency, clan component of relationships (can't find English term for свояченичество), etc. that number perfectly fits into the picture to explain how we justify that dream.

wry_discontent 6y ago

I wouldn't support firing somebody for supporting Trump, but I can definitely understand the sentiment. Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color.

2020views 6y ago
And right here, you've exposed yourself as a racist. Are you a 'person of color'? You're presuming to speak for all of them and can't imagine anyone would not share your same political views. Worse, that based on their skin color they must act as some homogeneous group.
- wry_discontent 6y ago
  Citation needed. I didn't do any of that. It's kinda weird to me that you think that at all summarizes what I wrote.
  - 2020views 6y ago
    > "Trump has pretty well established himself as a racist, and I can imagine how that would not go over well with employees of color." So tell me then, why do you think someone supporting Trump "would not go over well" with "employees of color". Your words. Please, tell me more about how 'employees of color' think
    - wry_discontent 6y ago
      Is it really controversial to say that people of color don't like racism? I guess I do hold controversial opinions. Please don't cancel me, 2020views.

anotherman554 6y ago

No, the question was about business executives. So among other things you can't say "53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign" since that wasn't the question, it was about business executives. I'm not sure why it was phrased that way. It seems to be hinting at wealthy people controlling the outcome of elections.

ghaff 6y ago
I think it's more that business executives, to a greater degree than people in the trenches, are faces of the company. Being a known supporter of a political candidate who is vilified among the people who buy from you or who you otherwise depend upon for support and cooperation can be a problem.

renewiltord 6y ago

Sure, I support the right of people to do both of those. I'll compress the moral argument: A: Support for liberty means I don't want to restrict who works with whom. B: Veil of Ignorance means I don't want circumstances out of someone's control to result in use of A to discriminate in hire/fire. C: Individual freedom is important. D: Societal success is important. The nuance is not quick-expressible in text, but that's the short form. I believe principles are only useful if they lead to desirable outcomes, so I have no problem special-casing exemptions to these, but I don't think political opinion is worth making a protected hiring class. This is a point where I disagree with California employment law (which does make political affiliation a protected class) and agree with Federal employment law which is more circumspect in its. On the other hand, I wouldn't fire a person for political affiliation, generally. If it would almost certainly sink my business, then I would.