3 ms·
What is unclear is if the author meant to make a broad statement about activities outside work that don't really interfere with work. >wouldn’t it be simpler t
by rosmax_1337 3y ago
What is unclear is if the author meant to make a broad statement about activities outside work that don't really interfere with work.
>wouldn’t it be simpler to agree that, at least if no laws are broken, one is judged at work only for what one does at work?
Would the author still agree with this sentiment if the activity outside of work was not pornography, but something they themselves find disagreeable? Let's say for example, participating in a KKK gathering. (not public activism, which certainly can interfere with someone in an official position) Please note that the KKK is a stand-in example rather than an actual example. You can imagine but I'd refrain from mentioning more real examples, which people are actually fired or "canceled" for, activities which certainly is far from something like pornography.
- lelanthran 3y ago> Would the author still agree with this sentiment if the activity outside of work was not pornography, but something they themselves find disagreeable? Let's say for example, participating in a KKK gathering. (not public activism, which certainly can interfere with someone in an official position) Please note that the KKK is a stand-in example rather than an actual example. From reading other stories by that author at that same publication, I think he'd agree. He's against cancel-culture in general, and has been writing against it for the past few stories, at least.