4 ms·
In the same way you handle all people who actively publish hateful comments about protected classes of people, by firing them so they cannot inflict their belie
by pr0zac 5y ago
In the same way you handle all people who actively publish hateful comments about protected classes of people, by firing them so they cannot inflict their beliefs on other workers.
I feel like you think you’re posting some sort of gotcha. Do you not believe Apple would’ve done the same thing in those cases? Based on what? Do you have a single example of that happening?
- cudgy 5y agoI know Apple would not do the same thing in those cases, because those people are not “protected”. However, Why should they not protect those people too? I’d argue because society has decided that those classes can be subject to derogatory classifications without consequence and, therefore, Apple’s statement is typical corporate virtue signaling. Furthermore, if Apple were to apply this rule for every derogatory remark regarding a class of people, they would only have a few employees left when the dust settled.
- pr0zac 5y agoYou should probably do some reading on discrimination and hostile work environment laws and case history before speaking so confidently. Men are definitely a protected class, as are white people. Veterans are a protected class with regard to government contractors which Apple is. You should also probably read up on the difference between private and public speech because it’s also applicable here. A derogatory remark does not open a company up to the same legal risk as the same words published in a best selling book.
- ihsw 5y agoYou're carefully parsing the words out and qualifying your statement with "protected classes" when clearly the parent commenter was asking about obvious anti-white racism and anti-male sexism. Why?