By today’s standards, yes, this seems tame. But keep in mind the context. She had made numerous right-wing and fringe statements before (e.g. questioning the efficacy of COVID masks), and this is basically equalizing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis to people making hateful comments about MAGA. It’s a pretty insane and inappropriate comparison. I will say I think she had a point later, when she argued she was discriminated against because the network hadn’t fired other actors who compared Trump to Hitler. Both statements are similarly disrespectful to the victims of one of the worst atrocities in history (although I would also qualify that they’re not equally disrespectful—Trump does at least admire Hitler and arguably aspires to be him).
I guess I’m saying I can understand why they fired her. Part of me doesn’t agree with it—I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach. I don’t agree with her statements and think she should have had the right to say them without reprisals, but she also has no right to be surprised at the consequences in my view.
I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.
Define “political statement”.
Because it looks like you’re putting “this is just like beginning of the holocaust”, “non-whites don’t deserve human rights” and “let’s seriously consider not having a secret police” in the same bracket here.
A statement being a political position doesn’t (or rather shouldn’t) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being “corporate image concerns” is insidious.
Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement? Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it? I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line? As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?
I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.
If im asking you it’s because I don’t understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?
Im seeing a wall of text here so I’m going to split them up into something more coherent.
Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?
Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?
The answer to both is that it’s a legal issue, my personal beliefs don’t really factor in to the legal outcome.
I think freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.
I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?
Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.
I’d evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.
As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?
No idea, not sure how it’s relevant but I don’t generally care enough to have an opinion I’d be willing to defend.
Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don’t give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.
I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.
Agreed
I wasnt looking for what “acceptable” political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.
I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).
Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.
Agreed, the anti-mask shit was annoying, and it is ridiculous to compare being criticized for your political views to violent pogroms. But it’s just run of the mill dumb conservative shit. It does more harm than good to get people fired over piddling speech offenses. These people love to play the victim, and this just gives them ammo. She was the victim in this instance.
That’s a dumb statement, but it’s pretty tame and no reason to fire someone. This is what people mean when they talk about Woke 1.0
Woke 1.0 is such a stupid fucking phrase.
By today’s standards, yes, this seems tame. But keep in mind the context. She had made numerous right-wing and fringe statements before (e.g. questioning the efficacy of COVID masks), and this is basically equalizing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis to people making hateful comments about MAGA. It’s a pretty insane and inappropriate comparison. I will say I think she had a point later, when she argued she was discriminated against because the network hadn’t fired other actors who compared Trump to Hitler. Both statements are similarly disrespectful to the victims of one of the worst atrocities in history (although I would also qualify that they’re not equally disrespectful—Trump does at least admire Hitler and arguably aspires to be him).
I guess I’m saying I can understand why they fired her. Part of me doesn’t agree with it—I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach. I don’t agree with her statements and think she should have had the right to say them without reprisals, but she also has no right to be surprised at the consequences in my view.
Define “political statement”.
Because it looks like you’re putting “this is just like beginning of the holocaust”, “non-whites don’t deserve human rights” and “let’s seriously consider not having a secret police” in the same bracket here.
A statement being a political position doesn’t (or rather shouldn’t) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being “corporate image concerns” is insidious.
No, you define it.
Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement? Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it? I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line? As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?
I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.
If im asking you it’s because I don’t understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?
Im seeing a wall of text here so I’m going to split them up into something more coherent.
The answer to both is that it’s a legal issue, my personal beliefs don’t really factor in to the legal outcome.
I think freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.
Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.
I’d evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.
No idea, not sure how it’s relevant but I don’t generally care enough to have an opinion I’d be willing to defend.
Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don’t give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.
Agreed
I wasnt looking for what “acceptable” political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.
I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).
Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.
Agreed, the anti-mask shit was annoying, and it is ridiculous to compare being criticized for your political views to violent pogroms. But it’s just run of the mill dumb conservative shit. It does more harm than good to get people fired over piddling speech offenses. These people love to play the victim, and this just gives them ammo. She was the victim in this instance.