11 ms·

One part of the article: This is about a guy who wrote a book on his own time, published it outside of work. Someone did not like some parts of the book and t

One part of the article: This is about a guy who wrote a book on his own time, published it outside of work. Someone did not like some parts of the book and the guy had to quit his job? There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. I write fictional stories in my spare time (never at work), I enjoy doing it. Some people enjoy reading them (I can't figure out why) It is a sad day for a Democracy when I am supposed to worry about what self-appointed political officers acting entirely outside of HR, will feel about what I write. That is an autocratic regime. Soon we will have struggle sessions at work.

jfengel 5y ago
If only he had a union. But the "right to work" is the right to be fired for any reason or none.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- bagels 5y ago
  Do you mean "at will employment"?
- baryphonic 5y ago
  California is definitely not a right-to-work state.[0] It does have at-will employment, just like almost every other state. But Apple employees are free to unionize at any time and, if successful, require dues for unionized employees. In fact, if CA is so friendly to unions and big tech companies are so progressive, why are none of the big tech companies unionized? [0]https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-right-to-work-laws.html https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-righ...
- sigstoat 5y ago
  if he, and those demanding his firing were all members of the same union, how vigorously do you think it would defend him? would they not just move their campaign to having him ejected from the union?
mempko 5y ago
You should look into the Democracy at Work movement. https://www.democracyatwork.info/ https://www.democracyatwork.info/ EDIT: Just downvoting. No opinions about the above?
e67f70028a46fba 5y ago
Soon?
asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago
> There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. We've had this discussion already, but claiming sexist views is going to be a problem for you whether you do it at work or elsewhere because of how laws around hostile work environments and notice work. Particularly, if you go on to actually create a hostile work environment (as one might reasonably suppose you will, having publicly espoused the relevant views), then the company might be on the hook for enhanced damages based on the idea that they knew or ought to know you posed a risk. Best not to do it in a high profile way if you want to work for a big company where people are sensitive to that sort of thing. If you want this to stop being the case, there are a few things that would need to happen. It might be that a combination of these would suffice: You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. You'd need to convince workers to put aside their personal interests in this matter for the greater good (that being the right to write a book that says sexist things but still work at Apple, or wherever). You'd need to change the law so that companies who know or should know that they have a risky worker don't pay any extra penalty if that worker goes on to harass someone. There are probably more complex things you could do to solve this problem but I guess those three are the simplest.
- narrator 5y ago
  You would never be able to hire a felon for anything since on that theory, the felon had done something outside of work that being a criminal act, might scare someone at work who had to work around them, even though their behavior at work was perfect.
  - randoramax 5y ago
    Ex-Felons have paid their debt to society, or at least get should be considered as such. And still, it's harder for them to get jobs.
    - spoonjim 5y ago
      They absolutely have not “paid their debt to society” unless they can undo the felony. You can’t pay back the debt of raping someone or stabbing them or killing them. Even if they let you out of jail.
ir123 5y ago
>There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. That's where you are wrong. He wrote some things he genuinely believed in, and its reasonable to assume that his actions will follow similar lines. Would I want a self proclaimed nazi to work with me? Hell no. Would I want a misogynist to work with me? No.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- 0xy 5y ago
  Political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, including the US. If an employee was a member of a fascist party it'd quite literally be illegal to fire them on that basis.
  - ir123 5y ago
    That sucks tbh. It should be legal to fire a fascist.
    - 3gg 5y ago
      Said no fascist ever.
  - PeterisP 5y ago
    No, political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, but excluding the US; in most states (excluding, IIRC, California - which matters a lot here) it would be legal for a private employer to fire an employee for being a member of the Democrat or Republican party. The key employee anti-discrimination law is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin - but not political affiliation.
    - zackees 5y ago
      This is the correct answer. Believe it or not it’s completely legal to fire someone in California for going to a black lives matter protest or a conservative conference.
49531 5y ago
I would argue that this has always been the case, it has never been uncommon to be fired for political activities done outside of work. Perhaps you're only noticing it now that people who think and act like you are experiencing it?
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
Ar-Curunir 5y ago
The content of what was said matters. Stop trying to equate two situations that are only superficially similar.
Kye 5y ago
You act like this is something new. Writers have used pseudonyms for as long as writing has existed, often to avoid this issue.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  I haven't figured out why more people don't use pseudonyms in this era? Of all times in history, this seems like the time to use a nom de plume? I haven't figured out if it's ego preventing people from anonymity, or they think their name will eventually get out there---so why not happily sign my name to my work? I do get it that publishing has vastly changed over the years. It seems like the most talented writers will never get a book if they don't publish themselfs? While the guy whom gets the most internet publicity, for any reason, gets a book deal?
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    A lot of publishing is for building ones personal brand so you can get jobs, speaking engagements, invitations to cool parties, etc. can’t really do that psuedonymously.
vl 5y ago
This is nothing new, in fact SV companies have a history of firing people for political beliefs.
- ARandomerDude 5y ago
  They fire users too.
langitbiru 5y ago
I think in the future, people will start to embrace pseudonymous accounts. People will not share any opinions with their real identities. But they'll do it with their pseudonymous accounts. This can go further than sharing opinions. People's livelihood will be based on their pseudonymous accounts. It happens already in cryptocurrencies projects. Some accounts who work in these projects are pseudonymous accounts. They can accept payment via cryptocurrencies.
- Areading314 5y ago
  This is also what people do in autocratic regimes. Effectively we have created a "democratic autocracy" by means of allowing mobs of people to steamroll people online and destroy their reputations.
  - tjpnz 5y ago
    There's aspects of an oligarch here too. Relatively few have the money to successfully sue for genuine damage to reputation should false accusations also be made.
  - sdenton4 5y ago
    Fwiw, 'autocracy' means "a country, state, or society governed by one person with absolute power," and has nothing to do with any of this. There's no 'auto' here, no governing, and any power involved is far from absolute... Freedom of speech doors not mean freedom from consequences for what one says. If someone says shitheel things, their 'reputation' is allowed to suffer...
    - aksss 5y ago
      Well just think about all the times in history where religious culture has the upper hand, or anti-communism, or communism. To me it doesn’t matter what the dogma of the day is, the behavior of loud elements in society shouting down free expression, or unorthodox thought, is pretty repugnant. It’s not as simple as saying society is just expressing displeasure. That’s fine, but I think we can all see a different beast rising up here in the US lately that is historically recognizable. Read the opening of The Three Body Problem - that shit was real, and those social movements are a liability for any culture as it’s part of human behavior. There’s nothing exceptional about the US that prevents our society from falling victim to political cults.
noelsusman 5y ago
"He wrote some stuff and somebody didn't like it" isn't a good faith description of what actually happened. I also don't know what it has to do with democracy.
- anonymoushn 5y ago
  It is maybe rude to suppose that perspectives other than your own can only be held disingenuously
spoonjim 5y ago
Most people like yourself are publishing pseudonymously. If you are building your personal brand with your writing and can’t publish pseudonymously, then maybe don’t, until you’re free enough to not need the Apples of the world.
refurb 5y ago
You joke about struggle sessions but that seems to be the direction we’re headed in, just using different words. I’ve been in HR sessions where “self-criticism” is a core part of the training. All we need to do now is start throwing around terms like “counter-revolutionary ideas”. We’ve already started to label ideas as “dangerous” because they “foment discord”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism–Leninism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism–Leni...
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  I think the word is going to be "harmful". Harmful ideas, harmful expressions, harmful thoughts.
  - secondcoming 5y ago
    Harmful considered harmful?
- aksss 5y ago
  Long form article, but struggle sessions are actually being done in academia now. Coming soon to an institution near you. 25 years ago we used to laugh about how batshit looney Evergreen was, now they’re still on the fringe but what we used to laugh at has become the norm in academia. This is not the path of progress. As CS Lewis said, when you determine you’re going the wrong direction, progress is actually turning around. https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-portland-public-schools https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-portland-p...
philwelch 5y ago
> Soon we will have struggle sessions at work. Soon? It’s already happening.
astrange 5y ago
> This is about a guy who wrote a book on his own time, published it outside of work. > There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. Didn't his book talk about him having sex with his coworkers in the closet at work?

jfengel 5y ago

If only he had a union. But the "right to work" is the right to be fired for any reason or none.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
bagels 5y ago
Do you mean "at will employment"?
baryphonic 5y ago
California is definitely not a right-to-work state.[0] It does have at-will employment, just like almost every other state. But Apple employees are free to unionize at any time and, if successful, require dues for unionized employees. In fact, if CA is so friendly to unions and big tech companies are so progressive, why are none of the big tech companies unionized? [0]https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-right-to-work-laws.html https://statelaws.findlaw.com/california-law/california-righ...
sigstoat 5y ago
if he, and those demanding his firing were all members of the same union, how vigorously do you think it would defend him? would they not just move their campaign to having him ejected from the union?

mempko 5y ago

You should look into the Democracy at Work movement. https://www.democracyatwork.info/ https://www.democracyatwork.info/ EDIT: Just downvoting. No opinions about the above?

e67f70028a46fba 5y ago

Soon?

asdfasgasdgasdg 5y ago

> There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. We've had this discussion already, but claiming sexist views is going to be a problem for you whether you do it at work or elsewhere because of how laws around hostile work environments and notice work. Particularly, if you go on to actually create a hostile work environment (as one might reasonably suppose you will, having publicly espoused the relevant views), then the company might be on the hook for enhanced damages based on the idea that they knew or ought to know you posed a risk. Best not to do it in a high profile way if you want to work for a big company where people are sensitive to that sort of thing. If you want this to stop being the case, there are a few things that would need to happen. It might be that a combination of these would suffice: You'd need to convince workers to not believe that someone who says sexist stuff in a book is going to cause a problem for them. You'd need to convince workers to put aside their personal interests in this matter for the greater good (that being the right to write a book that says sexist things but still work at Apple, or wherever). You'd need to change the law so that companies who know or should know that they have a risky worker don't pay any extra penalty if that worker goes on to harass someone. There are probably more complex things you could do to solve this problem but I guess those three are the simplest.

narrator 5y ago
You would never be able to hire a felon for anything since on that theory, the felon had done something outside of work that being a criminal act, might scare someone at work who had to work around them, even though their behavior at work was perfect.
- randoramax 5y ago
  Ex-Felons have paid their debt to society, or at least get should be considered as such. And still, it's harder for them to get jobs.
  - spoonjim 5y ago
    They absolutely have not “paid their debt to society” unless they can undo the felony. You can’t pay back the debt of raping someone or stabbing them or killing them. Even if they let you out of jail.

ir123 5y ago

>There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. That's where you are wrong. He wrote some things he genuinely believed in, and its reasonable to assume that his actions will follow similar lines. Would I want a self proclaimed nazi to work with me? Hell no. Would I want a misogynist to work with me? No.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
0xy 5y ago
Political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, including the US. If an employee was a member of a fascist party it'd quite literally be illegal to fire them on that basis.
- ir123 5y ago
  That sucks tbh. It should be legal to fire a fascist.
  - 3gg 5y ago
    Said no fascist ever.
- PeterisP 5y ago
  No, political beliefs are a protected class in practically every first world country, but excluding the US; in most states (excluding, IIRC, California - which matters a lot here) it would be legal for a private employer to fire an employee for being a member of the Democrat or Republican party. The key employee anti-discrimination law is the Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prohibits employers from discriminating against applicants and employees on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin - but not political affiliation.
  - zackees 5y ago
    This is the correct answer. Believe it or not it’s completely legal to fire someone in California for going to a black lives matter protest or a conservative conference.

49531 5y ago

I would argue that this has always been the case, it has never been uncommon to be fired for political activities done outside of work. Perhaps you're only noticing it now that people who think and act like you are experiencing it?

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

Ar-Curunir 5y ago

The content of what was said matters. Stop trying to equate two situations that are only superficially similar.

Kye 5y ago

You act like this is something new. Writers have used pseudonyms for as long as writing has existed, often to avoid this issue.

hellbannedguy 5y ago
I haven't figured out why more people don't use pseudonyms in this era? Of all times in history, this seems like the time to use a nom de plume? I haven't figured out if it's ego preventing people from anonymity, or they think their name will eventually get out there---so why not happily sign my name to my work? I do get it that publishing has vastly changed over the years. It seems like the most talented writers will never get a book if they don't publish themselfs? While the guy whom gets the most internet publicity, for any reason, gets a book deal?
- spoonjim 5y ago
  A lot of publishing is for building ones personal brand so you can get jobs, speaking engagements, invitations to cool parties, etc. can’t really do that psuedonymously.

vl 5y ago

This is nothing new, in fact SV companies have a history of firing people for political beliefs.

ARandomerDude 5y ago
They fire users too.

langitbiru 5y ago

I think in the future, people will start to embrace pseudonymous accounts. People will not share any opinions with their real identities. But they'll do it with their pseudonymous accounts. This can go further than sharing opinions. People's livelihood will be based on their pseudonymous accounts. It happens already in cryptocurrencies projects. Some accounts who work in these projects are pseudonymous accounts. They can accept payment via cryptocurrencies.

Areading314 5y ago
This is also what people do in autocratic regimes. Effectively we have created a "democratic autocracy" by means of allowing mobs of people to steamroll people online and destroy their reputations.
- tjpnz 5y ago
  There's aspects of an oligarch here too. Relatively few have the money to successfully sue for genuine damage to reputation should false accusations also be made.
- sdenton4 5y ago
  Fwiw, 'autocracy' means "a country, state, or society governed by one person with absolute power," and has nothing to do with any of this. There's no 'auto' here, no governing, and any power involved is far from absolute... Freedom of speech doors not mean freedom from consequences for what one says. If someone says shitheel things, their 'reputation' is allowed to suffer...
  - aksss 5y ago
    Well just think about all the times in history where religious culture has the upper hand, or anti-communism, or communism. To me it doesn’t matter what the dogma of the day is, the behavior of loud elements in society shouting down free expression, or unorthodox thought, is pretty repugnant. It’s not as simple as saying society is just expressing displeasure. That’s fine, but I think we can all see a different beast rising up here in the US lately that is historically recognizable. Read the opening of The Three Body Problem - that shit was real, and those social movements are a liability for any culture as it’s part of human behavior. There’s nothing exceptional about the US that prevents our society from falling victim to political cults.

noelsusman 5y ago

"He wrote some stuff and somebody didn't like it" isn't a good faith description of what actually happened. I also don't know what it has to do with democracy.

anonymoushn 5y ago
It is maybe rude to suppose that perspectives other than your own can only be held disingenuously

spoonjim 5y ago

Most people like yourself are publishing pseudonymously. If you are building your personal brand with your writing and can’t publish pseudonymously, then maybe don’t, until you’re free enough to not need the Apples of the world.

refurb 5y ago

You joke about struggle sessions but that seems to be the direction we’re headed in, just using different words. I’ve been in HR sessions where “self-criticism” is a core part of the training. All we need to do now is start throwing around terms like “counter-revolutionary ideas”. We’ve already started to label ideas as “dangerous” because they “foment discord”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism–Leninism) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-criticism_(Marxism–Leni...

inglor_cz 5y ago
I think the word is going to be "harmful". Harmful ideas, harmful expressions, harmful thoughts.
- secondcoming 5y ago
  Harmful considered harmful?
aksss 5y ago
Long form article, but struggle sessions are actually being done in academia now. Coming soon to an institution near you. 25 years ago we used to laugh about how batshit looney Evergreen was, now they’re still on the fringe but what we used to laugh at has become the norm in academia. This is not the path of progress. As CS Lewis said, when you determine you’re going the wrong direction, progress is actually turning around. https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-portland-public-schools https://www.city-journal.org/critical-race-theory-portland-p...

philwelch 5y ago

> Soon we will have struggle sessions at work. Soon? It’s already happening.

astrange 5y ago

> This is about a guy who wrote a book on his own time, published it outside of work. > There is nothing to suggest the man acted improperly at work. Didn't his book talk about him having sex with his coworkers in the closet at work?