3 ms·

Ah to have such freedom to express one’s opinion with little worry of losing one’s job, livelihood, and family. What a true luxury. The ability to speak openly,

Ah to have such freedom to express one’s opinion with little worry of losing one’s job, livelihood, and family. What a true luxury. The ability to speak openly, without worry, is the new privilege.

okareaman 5y ago
There's a lot of truth in this. I retired recently on not a lot of money because of poor planning, but I am wealthy in time and the option to say what is on my mind. It's not bad.
hacknews20 5y ago
True.
fellowniusmonk 5y ago
I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job. I got fired once for admitting I had gotten a divorce in the past. I shit you not. Definitely saw people get fired for being pro-choice. Maybe I've been in the workforce too long but I don't think this is entirely a new thing.
- underseacables 5y ago
  I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person. I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so. Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine. {a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
  - engineer_22 5y ago
    Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company. If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?
    - underseacables 5y ago
      But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful
jfengel 5y ago
Just the opposite. It's a very old privilege. And a ton of people have never had it. Some people who have gotten used to that privilege are starting to lose it. That makes them pretty angry. The problem is that they're angry at the people who never had the privilege. And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. So the people who got used to it are pretty grumpy. I suppose I understand that. But for a lot of people, their response is "Hi, welcome to my Tuesday, or any other day ending in 'y'".
- textgel 5y ago
  > And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Cite proof of this, this is exaggeration at best or more accurately a complete falsehood. > Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. Certain opinions deemed "Hurtful" include, we should have right to fair trial, we shouldn't discriminate based on race, we shouldn't bring back book burning, and sins of the father is archaic and ridiculous.

okareaman 5y ago

There's a lot of truth in this. I retired recently on not a lot of money because of poor planning, but I am wealthy in time and the option to say what is on my mind. It's not bad.

hacknews20 5y ago

True.

fellowniusmonk 5y ago

I saw this all the time in Nashville after my family moved there, a person couldn't even admit to being gay and keep their job. I got fired once for admitting I had gotten a divorce in the past. I shit you not. Definitely saw people get fired for being pro-choice. Maybe I've been in the workforce too long but I don't think this is entirely a new thing.

underseacables 5y ago
I think it goes much further than that, and it is the employers to blame. A person should be able to speak their mind politely and non-threatening, without fear of losing their job, or their safety threatened. Unfortunately it is the employers that are bullied into believing that to keep that employee, for example, who said that the arson and fires of Kenosha were absolutely wrong, might somehow jeopardize the entire company or their safety. [a] Consequently they cave to this paranoia, or perhaps fear of violence, and fire the person. I think it’s abhorrent, cowardly, and companies should be held liable for doing so. Eventually we are going to reach some point where companies start to fear lawyers and civil judgements more than they fear the Internet mob. Once a company has to shell out millions for improperly dismissing an employee Because they exercised a nonviolent freedom of speech outside of the workplace, then perhaps they will grow a spine. {a}. https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-choral-composer-antifa-blm-gia/ https://reason.com/2021/06/15/daniel-elder-cancel-culture-ch...
- engineer_22 5y ago
  Employee opinion is linked to company opinion. Insofar as the market cares what a company thinks about politics, having the wrong opinions can hurt the company. If you force a company to keep a "disruptive" employee, can you force a customer to purchase from that company?
  - underseacables 5y ago
    But what is a disruptive employee? Someone who speaks their mind respectfully and politely outside of work? A company should not be able to claim but someone is disruptive simply because they exercise their right to speak on an issue outside of the workplace. You may have just identified the legal action. Was the employee disruptive? If courts ruled that the employee was not disruptive to the company, then it’s possible a court could rule that their termination was not justified. I’m not sure what company you work for, but I certainly hope it’s not as dictatorial and all powerful

jfengel 5y ago

Just the opposite. It's a very old privilege. And a ton of people have never had it. Some people who have gotten used to that privilege are starting to lose it. That makes them pretty angry. The problem is that they're angry at the people who never had the privilege. And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. So the people who got used to it are pretty grumpy. I suppose I understand that. But for a lot of people, their response is "Hi, welcome to my Tuesday, or any other day ending in 'y'".

textgel 5y ago
> And rather than trying to extend it to everybody, they're demanding that it continue to be extended just to them. Cite proof of this, this is exaggeration at best or more accurately a complete falsehood. > Turns out that in a lot of ways it's a privilege nobody should have. Some opinions are hurtful, and people don't want to associate with those who hold them. It's a hell of a privilege to ask for the ability to say absolutely anything you want -- even if it hurts other people -- without consequences to you. Certain opinions deemed "Hurtful" include, we should have right to fair trial, we shouldn't discriminate based on race, we shouldn't bring back book burning, and sins of the father is archaic and ridiculous.