3 ms·

There are many different types of "dangerous" things you can do for your career, and some are worse (and more permanent) than others. The most "dangerous" thin

There are many different types of "dangerous" things you can do for your career, and some are worse (and more permanent) than others. The most "dangerous" thing for my career was when I started posting about what's happening in Gaza and Palestine on my public social media accounts. I've heard similar horror stories from others, ranging from being let go from their jobs to missing out on new opportunities and positions, specifically or "incidentally" as a result of their decision to speak out.

ebcode 2y ago
Yeah, I wonder if OP could replace "most dangerous" with "most honest" and not lose the meaning. Good on you for speaking out, and thanks for doing so.
marcellus23 2y ago
Thankfully it seems like the danger around that is much less now than it was in the first few months after October 7. Though unfortunately probably still present.
- quinttttle 2y ago
  Which is repulsively a phenomenon politicians and officials will knowingly exploit. I believe the number of murdered children in Gaza in the first few months was in the thousands. They get their dirty work done fast while others are not allowed to speak out.
engineer_22 2y ago
Yeah, freedom of speech used to be sacred... No longer.
- mikepurvis 2y ago
  Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences, particularly in one's dealings with private individuals or corporations. At best it's supposed to mean no reprisals from public institutions, such as the TSA, IRS, DMV, and the like.
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    It should if you have some semblance of professionalism. At work I don’t want to know nor want to know about the politics of the people working with me. If I’m engaged in a business transaction I don’t care about the personal views of the person I’m buying or selling from. Call me old fashioned but the world used to be that way before the rise of social media addictions and the current online echo chambers in our society.
    - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
      Pick the “wrong” group you find utterly distasteful (Nazi, anti-Nazi, conservative, liberal, gay, homophobic, etc). If I find the person’s views abhorrent, not a surprise I would choose not to do business with them if I had alternatives.
      - tpmoney 2y ago
        And one should have that right, but whether one should exercise that right is another matter. A thought experiment: If you could pick any point in history and make it so all people expressing socially unpopular views were permanently cast out from society, and all other people never spoke or traded or dealt with them ever again, when would you choose to freeze social opinion? Which modern day group of normal every day people, who we consider unobjectionable now, would be cast into the dustbin of history if societal opinion was frozen at your chosen moment of time?
        0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
        Really upping the ante if my personal morals lead to banishment of another. This was in the context of choosing business partners when I had the option. Not all of my beliefs are likely to be perfectly rational such that I could objectively defend them. That still means I can pick and choose my friends without casting the rest to oblivion. If the question is, “What happens if all of society rejects X group for their beliefs”, well that’s civilization. Part of the implicit agreement is that we can all reasonably agree on some things. If someone rejects that notion, well, there can be consequences (even for the “correct” position (say civil rights)).
- sudopluto 2y ago
  "about what's happening in Gaza and Palestine" seems like a euphemism for some more emotional / inflammatory posts. It's not a violation of free speech for a private corporation to make an at-will employment decision to protect their PR image.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
jules-jules 2y ago
Thank you for speaking out. There are so many who are too afraid sadly.
firesteelrain 2y ago
Since you mentioned Gaza and Palestine, I assume you are against Israel’s response. I don’t want to turn this comment section into that at all. I just wanted to say I feel that I can’t speak in support of Israel. The opposite can also be true. Again, not wanting to turn this into a Palestine/Gaza/Israel thing just pointing out that people on the other side feel the same way.
- threatofrain 2y ago
  In the US the more mainstream position is to support Israel, and only recently has there been a semblance in the change in trajectory. That's why both major parties come out in support of Israel.
  - rekabis 2y ago
    > In the US the more mainstream position is to support Israel The lobbyists for the military/industrial complex are numerous and exceedingly well-paid. > That's why both major parties come out in support of Israel. Which is how and why campaign contributions have become a systemic evil - it chains the platforms of politicians to the desires of the wealthy and powerful, thereby eliminating any ability for politicians to “do the morally/ethically correct thing”. Most of the western world was philosophically “on Israel’s side” because of the unrelenting evil of Hamas -- Hamas does’t care if every single Palestinian dies, so long as they “win”. Plus, genocide of the entire Israeli population has been baked into Hamas’ DNA from the beginning. But with this war, Israel has gone all “hold my beer and watch this”, and is making a legitimately successful bid at becoming the materially greater evil. It’s an ESH situation, with the Palestinian people caught in the crossfire.
  - runarberg 2y ago
    That was The Onion’s position as well: https://theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505/ https://theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it...

ebcode 2y ago

Yeah, I wonder if OP could replace "most dangerous" with "most honest" and not lose the meaning. Good on you for speaking out, and thanks for doing so.

marcellus23 2y ago

Thankfully it seems like the danger around that is much less now than it was in the first few months after October 7. Though unfortunately probably still present.

quinttttle 2y ago
Which is repulsively a phenomenon politicians and officials will knowingly exploit. I believe the number of murdered children in Gaza in the first few months was in the thousands. They get their dirty work done fast while others are not allowed to speak out.

engineer_22 2y ago

Yeah, freedom of speech used to be sacred... No longer.

mikepurvis 2y ago
Freedom of speech has never meant freedom from consequences, particularly in one's dealings with private individuals or corporations. At best it's supposed to mean no reprisals from public institutions, such as the TSA, IRS, DMV, and the like.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  It should if you have some semblance of professionalism. At work I don’t want to know nor want to know about the politics of the people working with me. If I’m engaged in a business transaction I don’t care about the personal views of the person I’m buying or selling from. Call me old fashioned but the world used to be that way before the rise of social media addictions and the current online echo chambers in our society.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
    Pick the “wrong” group you find utterly distasteful (Nazi, anti-Nazi, conservative, liberal, gay, homophobic, etc). If I find the person’s views abhorrent, not a surprise I would choose not to do business with them if I had alternatives.
    - tpmoney 2y ago
      And one should have that right, but whether one should exercise that right is another matter. A thought experiment: If you could pick any point in history and make it so all people expressing socially unpopular views were permanently cast out from society, and all other people never spoke or traded or dealt with them ever again, when would you choose to freeze social opinion? Which modern day group of normal every day people, who we consider unobjectionable now, would be cast into the dustbin of history if societal opinion was frozen at your chosen moment of time?
      - 0cf8612b2e1e 2y ago
        Really upping the ante if my personal morals lead to banishment of another. This was in the context of choosing business partners when I had the option. Not all of my beliefs are likely to be perfectly rational such that I could objectively defend them. That still means I can pick and choose my friends without casting the rest to oblivion. If the question is, “What happens if all of society rejects X group for their beliefs”, well that’s civilization. Part of the implicit agreement is that we can all reasonably agree on some things. If someone rejects that notion, well, there can be consequences (even for the “correct” position (say civil rights)).
sudopluto 2y ago
"about what's happening in Gaza and Palestine" seems like a euphemism for some more emotional / inflammatory posts. It's not a violation of free speech for a private corporation to make an at-will employment decision to protect their PR image.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

jules-jules 2y ago

Thank you for speaking out. There are so many who are too afraid sadly.

firesteelrain 2y ago

Since you mentioned Gaza and Palestine, I assume you are against Israel’s response. I don’t want to turn this comment section into that at all. I just wanted to say I feel that I can’t speak in support of Israel. The opposite can also be true. Again, not wanting to turn this into a Palestine/Gaza/Israel thing just pointing out that people on the other side feel the same way.

threatofrain 2y ago
In the US the more mainstream position is to support Israel, and only recently has there been a semblance in the change in trajectory. That's why both major parties come out in support of Israel.
- rekabis 2y ago
  > In the US the more mainstream position is to support Israel The lobbyists for the military/industrial complex are numerous and exceedingly well-paid. > That's why both major parties come out in support of Israel. Which is how and why campaign contributions have become a systemic evil - it chains the platforms of politicians to the desires of the wealthy and powerful, thereby eliminating any ability for politicians to “do the morally/ethically correct thing”. Most of the western world was philosophically “on Israel’s side” because of the unrelenting evil of Hamas -- Hamas does’t care if every single Palestinian dies, so long as they “win”. Plus, genocide of the entire Israeli population has been baked into Hamas’ DNA from the beginning. But with this war, Israel has gone all “hold my beer and watch this”, and is making a legitimately successful bid at becoming the materially greater evil. It’s an ESH situation, with the Palestinian people caught in the crossfire.
- runarberg 2y ago
  That was The Onion’s position as well: https://theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it-seems-like-yo-1850922505/ https://theonion.com/the-onion-stands-with-israel-because-it...