12 ms·

I understand this is a divisive political issue, but why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media? 39% of Americans believe abortion should be

I understand this is a divisive political issue, but why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media? 39% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. Should this very large group of people not be employable because of this opinion?

epicureanideal 5y ago
I also am concerned that the principle of CEOs not speaking out on issues is not being applied consistently. CEOs are allowed to publicly state their opinion if it is in favor of left leaning positions but not conservative leaning positions. See also the book Woke Inc.
- marcinzm 5y ago
  They're allowed to state their opinion if it does not negatively impact the finances of the company. That is the life of a CEO. You get the big money and you get the responsibility of being in charge.
  - quotemstr 5y ago
    > They're allowed to state their opinion if it does not negatively impact the finances of the company This is not a principle that the people who got this CEO actually live by or genuinely believe in. It's a post-hoc excuse for collecting a scalp from the other side. Let's speak plainly about what's really going on here.
    - marcinzm 5y ago
      Corporate board aren't some bastion of liberalism, they're generally older white man with money. Conservative much more often than not as that demographic tends to be. They didn't have some sort of magical change of heart in the last 10 years but simply do what is needed to make money.
  - kangnkodos 5y ago
    If instead, he had negatively imapacted the finances of the company by alienating the right, he would still have a job. It's only CEOs who go against the left who actually get fired.
- midev 5y ago
  > CEOs are allowed to publicly state their opinion if it is in favor of left leaning positions certifications but not conservative leaning positions. The left is the dominate culture in the United States. Places of education and culture are all blue. The right has only won the popular vote once since 1988. Mainstream culture has had it with conservative nonsense. We're tired of trying to drag the bible belt out of the 1950s. If you express conservative viewpoints, the people with all the buying power are not going to tolerate it. I love it. It's the capitalism that conservatives always wanted.
- moistly 5y ago
  LOL, wut? Every person in the USA has the same right to post their opinion. What would you like—for everyone to be forced into buying his company’s products/services? Cancel the right to (not) associate? Cancel free speech, so no one can spread news about his opinion? Foolish. Everything worked exactly as it is meant to work: freedom of speech and freedom of association, hand in hand.
- void_mint 5y ago
  > CEOs are allowed to publicly state their opinion if it is in favor of left leaning positions certifications but not conservative leaning positions. No. CEOs of companies that sell to left-leaning consumers can make left-leaning posts. The same goes for the right. This has always been true.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    When was the last time that a CEO got canceled by right-leaning consumers for making a left-leaning post? Most companies sell to both left-leaning and right-leaning consumers, but people only seem to get canceled over right-leaning posts.
    - b0sk 5y ago
      Donald Trump tried to cancel NFL because of black athletes kneeling for social justice and a significant percentage followed through.
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Last time I checked, the NFL still exists and kneeling for social justice still happens.
        nradov 5y ago
        NFL revenue dropped by a quarter in 2020, however that seems to have been mostly due to the pandemic rather than politics. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/11/nfl-revenue-drops-from-16-billion-to-12-billion-in-2020/ https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/11/nfl-revenue...
        only_as_i_fall 5y ago
        Right, but then the argument isn't that people only get canceled for conservative opinions, it's just that the left is better at it.
- mindslight 5y ago
  Supporting SB8 is not a conservative position, but rather a regressive one. Being truly conservative means supporting the precedent that was decided nearly 50 years ago, and has served us thus far. We need to stop letting this radical religious agenda be whitewashed as conservatism. It's born out of frustration with conservatism, but it is anything but conservative.
  - readflaggedcomm 5y ago
    Dead black babies isn't a conservative position.
  - tablespoon 5y ago
    > Being truly conservative means supporting the precedent that was decided nearly 50 years ago, and has served us thus far. That's a specious argument, since at its core you're just picking an arbitrary reference point that gets you the result you want. Also I don't think that "conservatism," properly understood, is about arbitrarily "conserving" everything.
    - mindslight 5y ago
      I wasn't picking a point in time, rather pointing out that 50 years is a pretty long time - nearly two generations of people. Someone who was 15 years old for Roe v Wade would be 63 years old today. We feel sorry for the twenty-somethings of Afghanistan, who only ever knew freedom, seeing the Taliban take over their country. This is over twice as long. To me, the core of conservatism involves respecting existing institutions and customs, and wanting change to happen slowly. This has direct bearing on the topic, because it's incorrect to say this CEO had to step down due to having a "conservative" opinion. Rather, business is intrinsically conservative. It's just that our societal values in 2021 involve things that religious fundamentalists do not like, such as women's healthcare and rainbow flags. Big business isn't embracing these symbols so they can be activists pushing change, but rather to ingratiate their businesses with consumers by embracing change that has already happened. This CEO didn't have to step down because they were against some change or wanted to slow it down, but rather because they were advocating for a change that most people find repulsive. There would be similar pushback for any political opinion that was equally unpopular.
- igetspam 5y ago
  Perhaps CEOs should be smart enough to not make their ethics public on divisive issues where they find themselves in the minority. Seems like bad business.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    Well, my point is that they do still make their ethics public on divisive issues where they find themselves in the minority... if those positions are typically held by the left.
willis936 5y ago
39% of Americans are not public figures. Public figures can and regularly do get shit canned for what they say. That's an integral part of the job.
- lucaspm98 5y ago
  I can agree there is a greater level of scrutiny on public figures. I'm simply surprised because this is a fairly generic tweet supporting a mainstream political position.
  - tekromancr 5y ago
    The law reinvents stasi with extra steps. I think even people against abortion can see the lack of wisdom incentivizing p2p spying.
- bronzeage 5y ago
  Cancel culture is out of control. It's disgusting. This isn't some Nazi. People who are against abortion think that it is murder. You can disagree with them but it's not like they are coming from some morally unjustified position. A person speaks out against what he thinks is murder, and ends up cancelled and resigning. I love eating meat, I don't see it as murder but I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder.
  - subsection1h 5y ago
    > I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder. There are relatively few vegetarians and vegans, so they aren't a real threat. I doubt you know what you would do if the number of vegetarians and vegans in your country were the same as the number of anti-abortion theocrats and the former were actively pursuing a long-term goal of establishing legally that all animals have personhood.
    - kangnkodos 5y ago
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
marcinzm 5y ago
It's rather simple, if you're the CEO then you're going to get flak for saying things that make the company lose money. The online response to the tweet was to blacklist the company and block it on steam. If you do then you may be fired for it. The title and salary come with responsibilities.
midev 5y ago
> why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media He can, and did, voice his opinion on social media. He was not prevented from doing so in any way. Other people read his opinion and decided they didn't want to work with him anymore. Also their right. Because enough customers and partners decided they didn't want to work with him anymore, he felt like the only way to save his business was to step down. > Should this very large group of people not be employable because of this opinion It's not just an opinion, but legislation that puts millions of women at risk. If you support things that are harmful to women, I don't see why I'd employ you. :shrug: For what it's worth, this is what conservatives have been pushing for decades, the ability to discriminate based on skin color, sexual orientation, and political beliefs. I am all for giving them their wishes on this one.
- lucaspm98 5y ago
  Saying conservatives are pushing for the ability to discriminate based on skin color, sexual orientation, and political beliefs is not additive to the discussion without further explanation. Conservatives claim the exact same thing about the left on issues like affirmative action and critical race theory.
skuhn 5y ago
Yes, he got to voice his opinion on social media. His opinion is gross to me, because the Texas law he is celebrating is (in my opinion) a terrible blow to gender equality, privacy and healthcare access -- which are particularly important things to me. Based on his statement, my response is that I do not want to conduct any sort of business with his company. That's not a major hardship to me (I didn't like Killing Floor), and it's not a major hardship to them. However, there are more people who feel like I do, and apparently some of them WORK at Tripwire. If I was in their position, I would have quit. Perhaps the company leadership didn't want that to happen? In short: who here has misbehaved to your mind? I am not legally required to financially support people who wish harm on me, am I? And let's be clear, people are already being harmed by this law -- this is not a mere disagreement on the finer points of jurisprudence.
- lucaspm98 5y ago
  I don't think it's illegal in any way. I do think it's a dangerous and impractical strategy to not do business with anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own. I can understand with extreme views, but on an issue like this I'd prefer discourse over further polarization. It doesn't sound like such a bad idea until it's applied to people/businesses with your beliefs.
  - skuhn 5y ago
    I feel like where we're at odds is in four places: 1. This is not a mainstream political belief. The law at the root of the current issue in Texas is far beyond the mainstream. The intention at some level is to shift the Overton window of what is mainstream in its favor, but that has not occurred yet. 2. It's not my responsibility to educate this guy to my point of view. I don't know him and I don't work with him. Actually the only thing I know about him is that he doesn't respect the rights of others that I feel are important, so I'm doubly disinclined to make his acquaintance. I would presume that some amount of discourse did occur within Tripwire, but I don't think we know. 3. I'm allowed to vote with my dollars. It doesn't have to be a glorious public crusade, and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. In this case, it certainly won't. But those dollars work for me, and I can choose to deploy them so as not to (tacitly or actively) support people or business who wish to harm myself and people who I identify with. That's what I have chosen to do, and others should make their own choices. 4. In a different scenario, I might indeed feel differently. I don't find that the slippery slope is a solid argument for why I can't take (lawful) action to preserve my values though.
moistly 5y ago
> why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media He did. So did other people, so everyone’s rights were well-maintained. They also made purchasing decisions. Would you deny them the right to choose a different service provider?
void_mint 5y ago
He can voice his opinion. His employer can take action against that opionion, as is at-will employment. He should work for a company that would put up with his views if he'd like to be public about controversial issues like abortion.
weare138 5y ago
Shouldn't people get to decide who they do business with or work for? Isn't that how free markets work? Besides it's not like there's a shortage of companies who wouldn't hire people with those views. Look at companies like Koch Industries for example. Having those views obviously isn't hurting their bottom line or the enumerable other corporations with openly conservative views. https://xkcd.com/1357 https://xkcd.com/1357
oliwarner 5y ago
Now a significant portion of his company and customers both hate him for it. Not a great CEO move, irrespective of your view on abortion. You can't air opinions like this unless you're happy to only work with and sell to people who think the same.
rsynnott 5y ago
> 39% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. I'd assume that many of them would be uncomfortable with the Texas law on a rule of law basis; it's divisive on two axes. Even many of those who approve of the ends would be very uncomfortable with the means.
- jjgreen 5y ago
  There have been several cases of women having pregnancies after a full hysterectomy, they were pregnant at the point of the operation, the foetus is left in the body-cavity, attaches to the large bowel or other handy blood supply and does its stuff. It strikes me that this offers a way out of the abortion conundrum, those who oppose abortion can offer their bodies as hosts for the precious foetus, women who do not wish to get their way too. This could also involve men opposed to abortion; they would need to be castrated and have large oestrogen injections to create the right chemical environment, but a small price to pay, surely.
only_as_i_fall 5y ago
He absolutely can voice his opinions, but he's also responsible for them. Is there some social more I missed that says forcing 13 year old rape victims to carry children to term is acceptable behavior but not buy videogames from the shitheads who support this policy crosses a line? Why should I support people who are trying to push their religious beliefs on me? Why should I support people who want to regulate what others can do with their own body?
- tzs 5y ago
  > forcing 13 year old rape victims to carry children to term According to Governor Abbott, this won't be a problem because "Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets" [1]. [1] https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-abortion-bill-wont-force-rape-victims-to-have-babies-texas-will-eliminate-rapists/ https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-abortion-bill-won...
- kangnkodos 5y ago
  I agree that a woman should get to decide what to do with her own body. Texas SB 8 is bad. But imagine you enter a Twilight Zone episode, and are transferred back to the 1920s. You publicly state your opinion that abortions should be legal, and then you lose your job because of it. How would that feel to you? Even though I think a woman's rights are the most important, I understand that there are lots of people from 1920, or even today who think the unborn baby's rights are the most important. In fact from their point of view, they think people who support abortion are baby killers. That's not right. You and me aren't baby killers. We want to help women. That's all. I don't think people with this other opinion are monsters. They're people. Like you and me. Just people with other opinions. They just want to help unborn babies. That's all.
  - version_five 5y ago
    I don't really agree with the second half of your comment - I won't get into that - but the first half is bang on. It's the same idea as asking people if they'd oppose slavery in the antebellum period, and they all pretend they would, while at the same time only supporting mainstream orthodox views in their own time period.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> I understand this is a divisive political issue, but why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media? He can. He did. > 39% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. Many people who believe that don’t support the Texas law; the people that oppose abortion actually overlap a lot with the people that think that open floodgates for private civil litigation by parties not directly involved in an issue is a very bad way to enforce even good and necessary laws. > Should this very large group of people not be employable because of this opinion? People who can’t restrain their public engagement on controversial issues to positions that the relevant decisionmakers are willing to tie the organization to tend not to be employable in positions where they are perceived as the face of an organization. Having a belief is not the issue.
- kangnkodos 5y ago
  If he had sent out a public tweet that he was against the Texas law, he would still have a job. Public opinion on the left - OK. Public opinion on the right - You're fired.
lamontcg 5y ago
You are free to speak your own opinions and the government won't stop you. You are not free to speak from consequences from other people. Everyone else is free to decide that they think you're an asshole that they don't want to work for. That is what actual FREEDOM looks like.
- version_five 5y ago
  How original. Then can I fire someone that works for me who advocates for access to abortion? If not, what is different compared to your example? People love to advocate for "freedom" when it agrees with their interests, and advocate for "accepting the consequences of your actions" when they disagree with something. Actual apolitical freedom means having a single standard to apply.
  - lamontcg 5y ago
    Business owners absolutely can, and their fired employees are free to let everyone know about that and boycott them if they want to.

epicureanideal 5y ago

I also am concerned that the principle of CEOs not speaking out on issues is not being applied consistently. CEOs are allowed to publicly state their opinion if it is in favor of left leaning positions but not conservative leaning positions. See also the book Woke Inc.

marcinzm 5y ago
They're allowed to state their opinion if it does not negatively impact the finances of the company. That is the life of a CEO. You get the big money and you get the responsibility of being in charge.
- quotemstr 5y ago
  > They're allowed to state their opinion if it does not negatively impact the finances of the company This is not a principle that the people who got this CEO actually live by or genuinely believe in. It's a post-hoc excuse for collecting a scalp from the other side. Let's speak plainly about what's really going on here.
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    Corporate board aren't some bastion of liberalism, they're generally older white man with money. Conservative much more often than not as that demographic tends to be. They didn't have some sort of magical change of heart in the last 10 years but simply do what is needed to make money.
- kangnkodos 5y ago
  If instead, he had negatively imapacted the finances of the company by alienating the right, he would still have a job. It's only CEOs who go against the left who actually get fired.
midev 5y ago
> CEOs are allowed to publicly state their opinion if it is in favor of left leaning positions certifications but not conservative leaning positions. The left is the dominate culture in the United States. Places of education and culture are all blue. The right has only won the popular vote once since 1988. Mainstream culture has had it with conservative nonsense. We're tired of trying to drag the bible belt out of the 1950s. If you express conservative viewpoints, the people with all the buying power are not going to tolerate it. I love it. It's the capitalism that conservatives always wanted.
moistly 5y ago
LOL, wut? Every person in the USA has the same right to post their opinion. What would you like—for everyone to be forced into buying his company’s products/services? Cancel the right to (not) associate? Cancel free speech, so no one can spread news about his opinion? Foolish. Everything worked exactly as it is meant to work: freedom of speech and freedom of association, hand in hand.
void_mint 5y ago
> CEOs are allowed to publicly state their opinion if it is in favor of left leaning positions certifications but not conservative leaning positions. No. CEOs of companies that sell to left-leaning consumers can make left-leaning posts. The same goes for the right. This has always been true.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  When was the last time that a CEO got canceled by right-leaning consumers for making a left-leaning post? Most companies sell to both left-leaning and right-leaning consumers, but people only seem to get canceled over right-leaning posts.
  - b0sk 5y ago
    Donald Trump tried to cancel NFL because of black athletes kneeling for social justice and a significant percentage followed through.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Last time I checked, the NFL still exists and kneeling for social justice still happens.
      - nradov 5y ago
        NFL revenue dropped by a quarter in 2020, however that seems to have been mostly due to the pandemic rather than politics. https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/11/nfl-revenue-drops-from-16-billion-to-12-billion-in-2020/ https://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2021/03/11/nfl-revenue...
      - only_as_i_fall 5y ago
        Right, but then the argument isn't that people only get canceled for conservative opinions, it's just that the left is better at it.
mindslight 5y ago
Supporting SB8 is not a conservative position, but rather a regressive one. Being truly conservative means supporting the precedent that was decided nearly 50 years ago, and has served us thus far. We need to stop letting this radical religious agenda be whitewashed as conservatism. It's born out of frustration with conservatism, but it is anything but conservative.
- readflaggedcomm 5y ago
  Dead black babies isn't a conservative position.
- tablespoon 5y ago
  > Being truly conservative means supporting the precedent that was decided nearly 50 years ago, and has served us thus far. That's a specious argument, since at its core you're just picking an arbitrary reference point that gets you the result you want. Also I don't think that "conservatism," properly understood, is about arbitrarily "conserving" everything.
  - mindslight 5y ago
    I wasn't picking a point in time, rather pointing out that 50 years is a pretty long time - nearly two generations of people. Someone who was 15 years old for Roe v Wade would be 63 years old today. We feel sorry for the twenty-somethings of Afghanistan, who only ever knew freedom, seeing the Taliban take over their country. This is over twice as long. To me, the core of conservatism involves respecting existing institutions and customs, and wanting change to happen slowly. This has direct bearing on the topic, because it's incorrect to say this CEO had to step down due to having a "conservative" opinion. Rather, business is intrinsically conservative. It's just that our societal values in 2021 involve things that religious fundamentalists do not like, such as women's healthcare and rainbow flags. Big business isn't embracing these symbols so they can be activists pushing change, but rather to ingratiate their businesses with consumers by embracing change that has already happened. This CEO didn't have to step down because they were against some change or wanted to slow it down, but rather because they were advocating for a change that most people find repulsive. There would be similar pushback for any political opinion that was equally unpopular.
igetspam 5y ago
Perhaps CEOs should be smart enough to not make their ethics public on divisive issues where they find themselves in the minority. Seems like bad business.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Well, my point is that they do still make their ethics public on divisive issues where they find themselves in the minority... if those positions are typically held by the left.

willis936 5y ago

39% of Americans are not public figures. Public figures can and regularly do get shit canned for what they say. That's an integral part of the job.

lucaspm98 5y ago
I can agree there is a greater level of scrutiny on public figures. I'm simply surprised because this is a fairly generic tweet supporting a mainstream political position.
- tekromancr 5y ago
  The law reinvents stasi with extra steps. I think even people against abortion can see the lack of wisdom incentivizing p2p spying.
bronzeage 5y ago
Cancel culture is out of control. It's disgusting. This isn't some Nazi. People who are against abortion think that it is murder. You can disagree with them but it's not like they are coming from some morally unjustified position. A person speaks out against what he thinks is murder, and ends up cancelled and resigning. I love eating meat, I don't see it as murder but I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder.
- subsection1h 5y ago
  > I would never agree to cancel someone because he decides to speak out his mind that meat is murder. There are relatively few vegetarians and vegans, so they aren't a real threat. I doubt you know what you would do if the number of vegetarians and vegans in your country were the same as the number of anti-abortion theocrats and the former were actively pursuing a long-term goal of establishing legally that all animals have personhood.
  - kangnkodos 5y ago

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

marcinzm 5y ago

It's rather simple, if you're the CEO then you're going to get flak for saying things that make the company lose money. The online response to the tweet was to blacklist the company and block it on steam. If you do then you may be fired for it. The title and salary come with responsibilities.

midev 5y ago

> why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media He can, and did, voice his opinion on social media. He was not prevented from doing so in any way. Other people read his opinion and decided they didn't want to work with him anymore. Also their right. Because enough customers and partners decided they didn't want to work with him anymore, he felt like the only way to save his business was to step down. > Should this very large group of people not be employable because of this opinion It's not just an opinion, but legislation that puts millions of women at risk. If you support things that are harmful to women, I don't see why I'd employ you. :shrug: For what it's worth, this is what conservatives have been pushing for decades, the ability to discriminate based on skin color, sexual orientation, and political beliefs. I am all for giving them their wishes on this one.

lucaspm98 5y ago
Saying conservatives are pushing for the ability to discriminate based on skin color, sexual orientation, and political beliefs is not additive to the discussion without further explanation. Conservatives claim the exact same thing about the left on issues like affirmative action and critical race theory.

skuhn 5y ago

Yes, he got to voice his opinion on social media. His opinion is gross to me, because the Texas law he is celebrating is (in my opinion) a terrible blow to gender equality, privacy and healthcare access -- which are particularly important things to me. Based on his statement, my response is that I do not want to conduct any sort of business with his company. That's not a major hardship to me (I didn't like Killing Floor), and it's not a major hardship to them. However, there are more people who feel like I do, and apparently some of them WORK at Tripwire. If I was in their position, I would have quit. Perhaps the company leadership didn't want that to happen? In short: who here has misbehaved to your mind? I am not legally required to financially support people who wish harm on me, am I? And let's be clear, people are already being harmed by this law -- this is not a mere disagreement on the finer points of jurisprudence.

lucaspm98 5y ago
I don't think it's illegal in any way. I do think it's a dangerous and impractical strategy to not do business with anyone with a mainstream political belief different than my own. I can understand with extreme views, but on an issue like this I'd prefer discourse over further polarization. It doesn't sound like such a bad idea until it's applied to people/businesses with your beliefs.
- skuhn 5y ago
  I feel like where we're at odds is in four places: 1. This is not a mainstream political belief. The law at the root of the current issue in Texas is far beyond the mainstream. The intention at some level is to shift the Overton window of what is mainstream in its favor, but that has not occurred yet. 2. It's not my responsibility to educate this guy to my point of view. I don't know him and I don't work with him. Actually the only thing I know about him is that he doesn't respect the rights of others that I feel are important, so I'm doubly disinclined to make his acquaintance. I would presume that some amount of discourse did occur within Tripwire, but I don't think we know. 3. I'm allowed to vote with my dollars. It doesn't have to be a glorious public crusade, and it may not make the slightest bit of difference. In this case, it certainly won't. But those dollars work for me, and I can choose to deploy them so as not to (tacitly or actively) support people or business who wish to harm myself and people who I identify with. That's what I have chosen to do, and others should make their own choices. 4. In a different scenario, I might indeed feel differently. I don't find that the slippery slope is a solid argument for why I can't take (lawful) action to preserve my values though.

moistly 5y ago

> why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media He did. So did other people, so everyone’s rights were well-maintained. They also made purchasing decisions. Would you deny them the right to choose a different service provider?

void_mint 5y ago

He can voice his opinion. His employer can take action against that opionion, as is at-will employment. He should work for a company that would put up with his views if he'd like to be public about controversial issues like abortion.

weare138 5y ago

Shouldn't people get to decide who they do business with or work for? Isn't that how free markets work? Besides it's not like there's a shortage of companies who wouldn't hire people with those views. Look at companies like Koch Industries for example. Having those views obviously isn't hurting their bottom line or the enumerable other corporations with openly conservative views. https://xkcd.com/1357 https://xkcd.com/1357

oliwarner 5y ago

Now a significant portion of his company and customers both hate him for it. Not a great CEO move, irrespective of your view on abortion. You can't air opinions like this unless you're happy to only work with and sell to people who think the same.

rsynnott 5y ago

> 39% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. I'd assume that many of them would be uncomfortable with the Texas law on a rule of law basis; it's divisive on two axes. Even many of those who approve of the ends would be very uncomfortable with the means.

jjgreen 5y ago
There have been several cases of women having pregnancies after a full hysterectomy, they were pregnant at the point of the operation, the foetus is left in the body-cavity, attaches to the large bowel or other handy blood supply and does its stuff. It strikes me that this offers a way out of the abortion conundrum, those who oppose abortion can offer their bodies as hosts for the precious foetus, women who do not wish to get their way too. This could also involve men opposed to abortion; they would need to be castrated and have large oestrogen injections to create the right chemical environment, but a small price to pay, surely.

only_as_i_fall 5y ago

He absolutely can voice his opinions, but he's also responsible for them. Is there some social more I missed that says forcing 13 year old rape victims to carry children to term is acceptable behavior but not buy videogames from the shitheads who support this policy crosses a line? Why should I support people who are trying to push their religious beliefs on me? Why should I support people who want to regulate what others can do with their own body?

tzs 5y ago
> forcing 13 year old rape victims to carry children to term According to Governor Abbott, this won't be a problem because "Texas will work tirelessly to make sure that we eliminate all rapists from the streets of Texas by aggressively going out and arresting them and prosecuting them and getting them off the streets" [1]. [1] https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-abortion-bill-wont-force-rape-victims-to-have-babies-texas-will-eliminate-rapists/ https://www.kxan.com/news/texas/gov-abbott-abortion-bill-won...
kangnkodos 5y ago
I agree that a woman should get to decide what to do with her own body. Texas SB 8 is bad. But imagine you enter a Twilight Zone episode, and are transferred back to the 1920s. You publicly state your opinion that abortions should be legal, and then you lose your job because of it. How would that feel to you? Even though I think a woman's rights are the most important, I understand that there are lots of people from 1920, or even today who think the unborn baby's rights are the most important. In fact from their point of view, they think people who support abortion are baby killers. That's not right. You and me aren't baby killers. We want to help women. That's all. I don't think people with this other opinion are monsters. They're people. Like you and me. Just people with other opinions. They just want to help unborn babies. That's all.
- version_five 5y ago
  I don't really agree with the second half of your comment - I won't get into that - but the first half is bang on. It's the same idea as asking people if they'd oppose slavery in the antebellum period, and they all pretend they would, while at the same time only supporting mainstream orthodox views in their own time period.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I understand this is a divisive political issue, but why can he not voice his opinion on his personal social media? He can. He did. > 39% of Americans believe abortion should be illegal in all/most cases. Many people who believe that don’t support the Texas law; the people that oppose abortion actually overlap a lot with the people that think that open floodgates for private civil litigation by parties not directly involved in an issue is a very bad way to enforce even good and necessary laws. > Should this very large group of people not be employable because of this opinion? People who can’t restrain their public engagement on controversial issues to positions that the relevant decisionmakers are willing to tie the organization to tend not to be employable in positions where they are perceived as the face of an organization. Having a belief is not the issue.

kangnkodos 5y ago
If he had sent out a public tweet that he was against the Texas law, he would still have a job. Public opinion on the left - OK. Public opinion on the right - You're fired.

lamontcg 5y ago

You are free to speak your own opinions and the government won't stop you. You are not free to speak from consequences from other people. Everyone else is free to decide that they think you're an asshole that they don't want to work for. That is what actual FREEDOM looks like.

version_five 5y ago
How original. Then can I fire someone that works for me who advocates for access to abortion? If not, what is different compared to your example? People love to advocate for "freedom" when it agrees with their interests, and advocate for "accepting the consequences of your actions" when they disagree with something. Actual apolitical freedom means having a single standard to apply.
- lamontcg 5y ago
  Business owners absolutely can, and their fired employees are free to let everyone know about that and boycott them if they want to.