Recently an influx of people who are caught on camera being racist to minorities, and most of the time this inevitably costs them their job. This has also spread to social media. People are posting their bigotry online and their employers see this and they are fired. College students are also being kicked from universities and barred from being admitted over social media. It has been polarizing. While many are in support of this decision there are also people against it.
Personally, I don’t see an issue with this. Employers have been watching the social media of their employees for a while now. People say this goes against free speech but free speech only protects citizens from the government, in America at least. It does not extend to privately-owned businesses. Furthermore, employers have the right to fire you for any reason, and posting racially charged things online can be one of those reasons. So, these people should be careful what they post online.
But, what do you all think of this? Do you think it’s justified? Why or why not? 🤔💭An exampleanother example
Yes, they should. (Why?)
No, they should not. (Why not?)
Select gender and age to cast your vote:
Please select your age
Updates
+1 y
please keep your opinions respectful.
Updates
+1 y
Some of these opinions are going wayyy off topic and are delving into a whole different can of worms. Interesting.
There has been a recent increase of firings for people being racist online via social media. Do you agree these people should lose their jobs?
Well, there is no right to a job and conditions may be stipulated to employment that limit what someone may say in a public context. In this employers have wide latitude.
In fact, as you may have seen the stepmother of the officer in the Atlanta police brutality shooting recently lost her job not for anything she said or did. Rather, merely because of nothing more than that she is the stepmother of the police officer in that incident.
That was it. The company decided that her presence, by virtue of the fact of who she is, was a liability and would likely bring down odium upon the company. In an age when Aunt Jemimah and Uncle Ben brands - which have been around for decades - got the boot, that is not too surprising.
Frankly, whether that is sensible or not is a separate question. At the moment, the nation is in fits of cackling hysteria and the sturdy men of industry are showing themselves to be quavering knee knockers who bow before the will of the mob and the moment.
However, the ethics of the question are separate from the legalities. To be sure, in some states there exist wrongful discharge laws. These usually apply to state government workers or to those workers who are covered by a labor union contract.
"At will" workers being what they sound like. Workers who are employed at the will and convenience of the employer. Albeit that anti-discrimination laws muddy this to the extent that, for example, laws against discrimination against homosexuals may be argued to protect "thought" in a sense. Even then, a homosexual may be homosexual, that does not give him/her scope to advocate those views on company time.
Long answer to short question. The inquiry asks, in effect, if a person deserves to lose their job for what they say. Deserves is a subjective point, but as no one is entitled to their job, the terms of employment, subject to anti-discrimination laws and specific labor union contracts, so deservedness, then, is determined by the employer.
That said, there is one other interesting aspect to all this. Apply this principle consistently and you, in effect. give business - especially large business - the power to control free speech. What an individual may say in a public context being effectively regulated by business interests - unless of course the person speaking is rich enough to be able to afford to lose their job.
Here then, the final irony. Those who are pushing for greater equality, racial and otherwise, and who no doubt fancy themselves social justice warriors are, in effect, empowering rich business interests to negate freedom of speech. To determine what might be said and what not.
Funny thing. There is an old maxim. Be careful what you wish for - you may get it.
I'm sorry I didn't read everything but TLDR; your job is a private company and not having a racist on the payroll gives them money. So the question you should ask yourself is if you had a business and one of your employees actions on social media is hurting your bottom line would you fire them?
@emanonwen Sorry. I don't follow. A company fires a racist and thus MAY save itself from being implicated in the views of its' employee. The employee is thus out of a job and out of money but there is not necessarily any financial gain to the company.
The company is acting defensively - to avoid a problem - not for gain. No one will play them for not hiring a racist.
That said, as noted, if the principle is applied perfectly and a company may fire someone for what they say on that person says on his own time, then you effectively allow companies to regulate speech. They decide who can say what and when.
This is a potential unintended consequence of the application of the principle. In general, a company may hire an "at will' employee on whatever grounds they choose. (Though there are limits against discrimination based on race, gender, religion, ethnicity, etc. Also, an employee protected by a labor union contract may also have some - though not absolute - immunity.)
However, apply that "at will" standard to its' logical conclusion and you allow companies to effectively regulate what their employees say and thus free speech is controlled by corporate interests. It is a logical, but unintended, outgrowth of the principle applied in this question.
We are all responsible for out actions if that employee wants to be racist in public do you, but expect the consequences. Adulting is a thing I have a job and I know the things I say on social media could cost me that job I keep them to myself.
@emanonwen Yup. However, again, if a company can tell you that you cannot say in public racist ideas you may hold. By what standard do you block the employee from articulating liberal ideas or socialist ideas?
The company has the authority and I approve, as I noted. I merely note that those who are singing the praises of the squelching of racist ideas by private companies will likely sing a different tune when it is ideas of which they approve.
What about the working environment? If an employee's remarks at work are racist-based, does that not make it an "unsafe/ toxic environment" to work in? IF an employee feels uncomfortable at work because of the remarks, is the company responsible to correct it or respect the speaking employee's first amendment rights?
@Fatherhere901 Not sure of your point. Again, an "at will" employee can be fired for any reason - at will. (Subject again to the limits of anti-discrimination laws.) Of course, a union employee is protected and there is usually an extended grievance process if an employer wishes to fire them - regardless of the reason.
(Thus, ironically, a union factory employee could more likely get away with racist remarks than good an executive at a major corporation as in the former case. Unless the employee was seen as threatening, the company might not find it worth the time and cost to dismiss him.)
If someone comes out publicaly as racist, that presents a problem for an employer. If the employer fires the racist employee, then the employer is making a statement to customers that they do not support racism. However, if the employer does not fire the racist employee, then the employer is making an implied statement to customers of their support of the racist employee's views and that, they too, are racist.
Look, the bottom line is simple economics: You don't want to alienate customers. Coming across as racist alienates not just the people that you are racist against but also any of their supporters. Not only is that a large fraction of your customer base, it is a growing fraction of your customer base as younger generations are growing up who are less intolerant of racism and bigotry than in generations past.
So, unless you are trying to sell KKK gear in which case your are targeting your racist customer base, it's smart business to rid yourself of racist people, policies, and symbols.
"My right to protest peacefully has been completely taken away from me." "You job literally fired you over your freedom of speech? That's fucked. I'm sorry.." That's horseshit and those two people need to grow up and join the real world.
He/she has a total right to say whatever they want.
>>>>>>> And their employer has that same right too. By firing the employee, the employer is saying "We don't tolerate racism so we have to remove you from our workforce because your views create a problem with our customers and employees".
You have a constitutionak right to announce to the world that you are an asshole. You do NOT have a constitutional right to be protected from the subsequent consequences.
But what is and what is not “racists” is constantly changing. What if I refuse to wear a BLM badge? What if call out BLM for instigating violence and looting? What if I call their hypocrisy for not acknowledging black on black crime (and those are spiking and their horrendous).
Well, you bring up a good point. Who defines what? Well, if you want to keep your job, it's your employer.
When in doubt, keep your mouth shut or do so anonymously (without an electronic trail).
This is something you learn when you get older.
Young people have all this newfound "power" being adults and are so sure of themselves that they spout whatever they are "thinking" (if you want to call it that; believing is more appropriate) whenever they want and feel that they have a right to do without repurcussion. And then the real world bitch-slaps them.
But older people grow out of that because they learned in The School of Hard Knocks. You keep your mouth shut unless it really is important and you are certain of your beliefs and usually the logic of it.
For instance, you just shot your mouth off about black-on-black crime. That is completely irrelevant to any discussion about #blm because #blm is about systemic racism. #blm is about what GOP-friendly Business Insider just wrote about yesterday.
About #blm instigating violence and looting... So what? That's in response to almost NOTHING having been done in the 155 years since the Civil War to combat that systemic racism. That "instigating violence and looting" is just the sort of thing that the Sons of Liberty did in the 1760s and 1770s that led to The Boston Tea Party (and other violence in other locations) which eventually caused us to declare independence. Bottomline: When the powers that be do not listen to you or respect, you need to make them listen to you and respect you. And, at the end of the day, you have to be responsible for your own survival. That's why there was an American Revolution and you can live in a free US of A.
I got a response to everything you said above. Over the 4th of July weekend an innocent 8 yr old black girl was murdered very close to wear the Rayshard brooks memorial is by black on black crime. The media didn’t say a word about it.
BUT but let’s not go down that rabbit hole. Let’s focus on work safety. I completely agree with everything you said above. Last week I permanently deleted my FB account after having it for 12 years. I feel like it was in one of the best decisions I made this year.
But the point Im trying to make is that I have never ever seen someone get fired for posting far radical left views. Ever. This whole cancel culture only applies to conservatives and even democrats who don’t go along with the woke narrative. Freedom os speech is being determined by Marxists in the name of “progression”.
@youknowbetter Hmmm... I won't disagree about getting fired for far left views... Maybe that's because far left views are about loving each other and looking out for each other. How's against that?
That said, even among the left, there is hostility toward the Cancel Culture.
Most of the 153 signatories on the letter are considered liberal although I definitely recognized conservatives among them such as NYT columnist David Brooks.
Artists and Writers Warn of an ‘Intolerant Climate.’ Reaction Is Swift.
An open letter published by Harper’s, signed by luminaries including Margaret Atwood and Wynton Marsalis, argued for openness to “opposing views.” The debate began immediately.
The killing of George Floyd has brought an intense moment of racial reckoning in the United States. As protests spread across the country, they have been accompanied by open letters calling for — and promising — change at white-dominated institutions across the arts and academia.
But on Tuesday, a different type of letter appeared online. Titled “A Letter on Justice and Open Debate,” and signed by 153 prominent artists and intellectuals, it began with an acknowledgment of “powerful protests for racial and social justice” before pivoting to a warning against an “intolerant climate” engulfing the culture.
“The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted,” the letter declared, citing “an intolerance of opposing views, a vogue for public shaming and ostracism and the tendency to dissolve complex policy issues in a blinding moral certainty.”
“We refuse any false choice between justice and freedom, which cannot exist without each other,” it continues. “As writers we need a culture that leaves us room for experimentation, risk taking, and even mistakes.”
www.washingtonpost.com/.../ Letter signed by J. K. Rowling, Noam Chomsky warning of stifled free speech draws mixed reviews More than 150 writers, journalists, academics and artists — including J. K. Rowling, Noam Chomsky and Margaret Atwood — signed an open letter published Tuesday arguing that stifled free speech is creating an “intolerant climate” within society.
While their pointed message acknowledges the national reckoning over racism and social injustice and celebrates “overdue demands for police reform,” it also argues that the protest movements have helped “weaken our norms of open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.”
And those letters got blowback. I’m at work right at the moment but it looks like you have good insight on this.
The bottom line there needs to be rigid guidelines on what is acceptable to share online vs. what isn’t. I can see why people get pissed off at confederate flags. But was this person explicitly using racial slurs and calling for open prejudice against black people? Many southerners see the confederate flag as a symbol of pride not hate. Obviously you can argue that stood for slavery. But a manager at his company should of pulled him aside about what he posted and said “look we do believe in freedom of expression but what you are posting is making us look bad. Please take it down and don’t ever post something like that again. If you can’t do that then we can no longer have you here”.
You wrote: "what is acceptable to share online vs. what isn’t"
This is what my boss said to me about 19 years ago: "If you wouldn't want it to appear on the cover of The New York Times tomorrow morning, then don't send it."
Unless you are on the radical left then it’s okay. I have yet to hear about someone losing their job for being openly Antifa and promoting anarchy.
Also please quit using the the NYT as an example. I neither trust nor respect that publication (that doesn’t mean I’m a FOX news fan either). They are doing internal “house cleaning”‘ because some of their editors aren’t woke enough. It’s not impartial journalism but social activism guised as journalism. When major incidents happen I first go to heavy. com to get facts. The only political commentator I fully trust is Ben Shapiro because he THINKS through issues from multiple angles. He also owns up to his mistakes. But it’s extremely rare moment when a liberal political commentator admits their wrong when criticizing the right.
This: "The only political commentator I fully trust is Ben Shapiro" You probably don't want to mention that in public if you are arguing. Lots of bias-meters such as AllSides. com (which is very open) indicates that he has considerable bias. https://www.allsides.com/news-source/ben-shapiro
You might be interested in this from the Columbia Review of Journalism. The "CRJ" is to journalism like the "Harvard Law Review" is to law.
As for liberals being fired, yes, it's happened now that I think about it. You may be too young, but Dan Rather lost his job as CBS Evening News anchor because of his reporting on G. W. Bush. Same with Brian Williams at NBC but for a slightly different reason. It happens. The media outlets may be accused of bias, but they need to do what they can to avoid giving that perception.
I laud various journalists (not opinionators) of Fox News for their effort to be journalists and not right wing mouth pieces. For example, Shepard Smith when he left last year.
Similarly, with the NYT or WashPo, there's a difference between the journalists and the opinionators. I don't really bother with the opinionators, but the journalism is rather solid.
@youknowbetter EXACTLY! What is "racist" now, is changing, literally by the day, and protest!! I'm expecting a lot of BIG $$ Lawsuits for firing some, expressing their 1st Amendment rights, and NOT being 'racist'! Seems that EVERY company is so freaking out, that they just fire anyone that might, in any possible way, be imagined to be thought 'racist'! That is FCKED UP!!
@JackSmy corporate America is too afraid of boycott or lawsuits so they cave to woke pressure. But like I said the radical left is never satisfied. What was radical 5 years ago is mainstream today. What is radical today will be mainstream in 5 years or less.
The question is when is the mainstream left and the right going to put their foot down and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH with this bullshit.
Absolutely, it's the internet- if people haven't grasped that yet then that's their issue. Yes you have freedom of speech, but having freedom of speech doesn't mean their aren't consequences to what you say. It kills me that these people don't know what freedom of speech means, it means you can disagree or agree about something and the government can't punish you for it (unless you're making terrorist like threats towards the president/government) otherwise, what you say publicly, or in this case, the internet can be held against you by your employer, friends, relatives if it's discriminatory or threatening towards a person's life. The fact that this person thinks saying racist shit is violation of freedom of speech is telling, these people want to be able to get away with their racism and not be called out for it or held accountable. Like it use to be in the old days when you can just call a black person a n! gger and happily walk down the white only neighborhood street.
Just imagine if a black person or non black minority said something racist about white people, they would jump on that shit in a minute and demand they be fired/removed. Even if it's not racist but something they didn't like to see /hear they still demand that person to be fired anyway. Gabriel union? They fired her cause she called out racism, Kaepernick, they wanted him canceled for taking a stand against racism but everyone flipped it to "disrespecting the military/flag" even though they damn well know that's not true. So when white people don't like something said or seen on tv/internet about them, they want it it gone and they want gone NOW. So it's the same with this situation, you want to say something racist? You're gone? Negatively talk about someone's religion? You're gone. Make remarks about someone's sexuality? You're gone. IT's like these people didn't grow up with parents that let them know that their words/actions have positive and negative consequences.
Say stupid things, win stupid prizes. I said stuff that's gotten me in trouble before, maybe not to this extent but people need to understand that you're tongue (in this case fingers?) is a weapon, it can be used to build up or tear down.
This girl a few hours before came on my question called me a bitch, and all this stuff because I don’t condone having the right to freely be racist. I mean, hell, you can freely be racist. But companies aren’t about that. That’s all. The government isn’t out here killing people because you said “white power” online. However, a black guy gets threatened to be lynched for wearing a black lives matter shirt.
yes, they are having a mental melt down that certain privileges are being stripped away from them. This is what black people have been talking about for years, racist for the longest time use to get away with this and still have job by the end the day but that's changing and a lot of them are not liking it. It just proves the privileges we've been talking about are and have always been there but we get constantly gaslighted into a corner to be silenced.
I think it’s fair, people need to understand that free speech doesn’t mean your words don’t have consequences, when you work for a private company you must follow certain guidelines that are put in place, these people probably signed contracts and then violated them by saying things like that, and plus why would a company want someone who’s racist to represent them, that’s negative publicity for the company and can be harmful to them. As for the college thing, it’s nothing new, they’ve been checking social media accounts for a while now.
Is they are morally crossing the line yes they should. Reprimanded especially. Only fire when proven be detrimental to everyone around them and is crossing moral lines. There's a reason why back in the day your reputation matters a lot. And the things you did and it things you said didn't just affected you. It affected your family, your friends, your community, and those you represent. I tell people all the time they are free to say whatever it is that they need to say as long as it comes from a moral standpoint that is respectable. But if you're doing this to entice fights, doing is because you simply hate somebody for no logical reason, and your intent is to be a woman, or cause problems for others, then yes that person needs to be held accountable. What I don't agree with is the hypocrisy. If you going to make a rule about something make sure the rule applies to everybody. Just like what they did to the other guy I forgot exactly his name I think is Kavanaugh, when he was accused of sexual assault. If you're going to bring up his past, make sure you bring up everybody else's. If you going to accuse him of something, make sure you look at the other person to who is the Accuser. Evaluate everything, then make a moral standpoint. But don't talk about everything isn't black and white, and only put it black and white when it's convenient for you.
That's why I don't like it especially when others want to point out being something religious when especially when the Bible points out about everything that goes on in this world but everybody says is outdated. I gained a lot of knowledge and inside just when reading the Bible. I had a lot of Injustice has done to me regardless if it was meant to be prejudiced or racist. But when I see other people getting away with stuff that they shouldn't be getting away with simply because of the Privileges that is given based by law, then it says a lot. I don't stare type and judge people all the same way. I judge the individual according to their works. And all I asked people if you're going to judge me make sure you judge me correctly because of you don't come correct and you're going to get judged the same way as you try to judge me. When it comes down to making past mistakes, people should be heard oh, and they should be forgiven for the mistakes. But if these are current matters where lessons are not being learned, then that's when action needs to be taken.
Yes, people that get caught expressing racist sentiment online should be fired for multiple reasons. First, practically every job has anti-discrimination policies. Whenever an employee gets hired for a job, he or she signs numerous documents during orientation, some of which involve company policy. If a person violates any of those policies, the employer has the right to terminate the offending employee. If you disagree with those anti-discrimination policies, don't sign such documents and don't work for the company question.
Second, allowing a racist to work certain jobs could be dangerous for the group that the racist hates. For example, a racist police officer that expressed his hate for Black people on social media could be biased in his policing towards Black people, resulting in an abuse of power towards them that could lead to injury or death. Healthcare workers that expressed hate on social media could be neglectful or harmful towards patients of the group that they dislike. Racist food industry employees could tamper with the food of the group that they dislike. The list goes on. To avoid these potential dangers, employers would be wise to fire any known racists on their payroll.
Third, keeping a known racist employed is bad for business. Because many people oppose racism and realize the dangers of having racist employees, if the public notices that a company does little to nothing about racist people within their company, the public would likely boycott them, which could ruin their profits. Thus, any company that wants to continue earning money should maintain a friendly, healthy relationship with all groups of people and show the public that they oppose racism by firing known racist employees.
I understand that people have freedom of speech. However, racism often involves more than speech, but also, as I mentioned previously, potentially harmful actions. In addition, freedom of speech does not apply to private property or even public places regulated by rules. A company firing a person for being racist is no different to you throwing a person out your house for being disrespectful.
I’m just going to primarily orient this around the BLM movement because that’s where the spike of racist posts have been coming from.
If you actively say, “Black Lives DONT Matter” you’re a racist piece of crap. And as an employer I would be very concerned as to what you could be or are presently doing to harass your Black or Brown coworkers, seeing that you don’t view them as worthy of life.
If there is evidence of this (such as making a racist post on social media) and one of these people strikes against their Black or Brown coworkers in an act of racism, the employer could very well face a lawsuit. Though a lawsuit isn’t the only reason they should be caring about their Black and Brown employees.
It’s basically trying to solve a problem before it becomes a problem, and even then, there probably have been aggressions and racist acts undertaken by the coworkers posting racist messages on their social media. Many POC are too scared to report because of the imbalance in the power structure, this is a concrete crackdown on racist employees.
on the other hand you didn't actually address the concerns of the anti black marxist matter movement... that they are communists using racial injustice as an excuse to do damage to society
in 2019 a total of 2 unarmed blacks were killed by police... in the first week of rioting 17 blacks were killed by rioters. they have no legitimate cause, and no goals
@007kingifrit bro do you even know what black Marxism is? Because that argument has arisen but it has been in no way tangible to the protests. Also you kind of ignored the major point that I was making that had nothing to do with Black Marxism, so like? Where is the correlation.
I have zero clue where you’re getting these stats, but anyways, what riots were happening in 2019? Even so, your statistic is incorrect. The Washington Post states that the police killed by shooting 13 unarmed black men in 2019. This is exclusively men and does include those who lost their life by beating, tasering or alternative means. So please check your sources my dude. Black men are killed at twice the rate as white men, it’s a pretty big problem.
No legitimate cause? No goals? I’m sorry but please do more research. If you can’t get the correct stats on police brutality I’m unsure if you’ve adequately educated yourself on the movement, because I can assure you there is plenty of cause behind it and many goals we aim to achieve.
no no i was just rearranging the letters blm into bml and calling them all marxists
as in; one cannot be in favor of the black lives matter movement without being a marxist or without accidentally being a useful idiot of marxists
and yea your wapo article states its 13 men... but it goes on to thin the stat further, 9 of which were resisting arrest and trying to seize guns from the cops, etc etc.
so once you subtract the ones that were infact "armed" or almost armed at the point of being shot... the number is 2
and the fact that there were no riots is my point, you would have been better off doing NOTHING
@007kingifrit bro you just contradicted yourself. Anywho, none of them attempted to seize the gun from the officers. None were resisting arrest seeing as they were simply shot point blank, did you read the statistic? There is no subtraction to be done there, that’s your number. It’s 13 whether you like it or not.
And you just said that 17 people died in riots in 2019 from Black people, so like what’s your point? Choose a hill to die on (metaphorically of course) so you can aptly debate and maybe have an educated response, or go and do some more research.
well i see 9; but i was wiling to allow you 13 for the sake of argument
either way that number does not contain the full story as you need to see what they were doing when they were shot. the vast majority of them deserved it
no i said in the first week of blm riots 17 black people died... so you would have accomplished more black life savings if you had done NOTHING
there is no goal to blm, no valid complaints, police killings of black people are actually underrepresented as per their real numbers of violent crime rate
Im so glad that the whole world is seeing what the foundations of America was founded on. I don’t hate Racist people, I just think that they can be shown a better perspective. “Forced diversity” is not a reason, for a minority to not exist. No one is forcing anything. A meteor falls from space, nobody forced that. We are all meant to interact with each other, period.
I’ve experienced selected racism myself. They exist in every job and every authority of power. The people doing background investigations for example. Once in a while I’ll make a gun purchase and my background investigations get “stuck”. Why? My record is crystal clean and I have served the country. Once I threaten to file a lawsuit, that’s when the background investigation gets finished. A minority like me is smiling that these people are getting taught a lesson.
I used to dislike seeing Feminist Liberal women saying things like “You’re an Effin white male”. But now I understand, I understand that nature tends to balance things out.
It is amazing how racist your examples are about Racism.
First, Yes. Saying anything racist online, in public, or in a media format is your right under the First amendment. And, everyone should agree, whatever you say is a reflection of your relationship towards others. ( At least that has been the basis if every high school "cat-fight" and clique known.)
But, what about the Company's First Amendment and it's reflection to the public? Companies have rules about dress codes, specifically, where everyone looks similar and professional as it is contingent to the outside public. I can imagine how many times you walked around in public and saw someone and recognized them as "working at ___________.". In this common pattern, you associate them with that business or company. Sometimes, even after they no longer are working there, you still remember them as "Working for ________". So, in that sense, if you work for a company, then you "represent" that company 24/7 and, how your comments , either in public, private, or in front of customers, reflect the company's image.
Now, for the basis of the comments , and how they are being considered "racist" against the person saying them. (You heard me). "Racism" is a derogatory remark said against anyone of a different race or culture... Correct? Then why are derogatorily discriminating remarks against a targeted race accepted and other remarks punished, during a time group of people are fighting for "all races are equal". If it is a true "all races equal" protest, why allow anyone to degrade people for their race, instead for their actions against another race.
While at-will employers are technically allowed to fire for any reason, they are also bound to operate within the constitution and law. Failing to do so, and trampling over a person's rights (free speech that is not slandering anyone, such as the example above) is grounds for a wrongful termination lawsuit.
The crux of the situation, and potential lawsuit, would be proving the infringement, and the very likely blacklisting of the person by the company, preventing them from ever working again.
We have separation of church and state to where churches do not provide rule. Why can't we have the same with business? It's a rhetorical question, but we are beholden to businesses who have the monetary might to wield lawyers, and be treated as individuals legally (as I understand it), leaving the common working person as a serf to the company's will.
Of course, we dislike admitting that our employer is a bully and part of the problem in the country, and corporations do what they will with us and our lives.
Do I agree with the content in the pictures above? I believe we will see more of that come out of the impoverished south.
If that person has their place of employment listed on their profile, that's grounds for firing. When you attach your employer's name to your social media, you become a representative of them - whether you think you are or not. It's often in social media policies of workplaces.
Honestly, if someone wants to be a racist bigot on social media, that's their right (within their platform of choosing's terms of service).
But doing it with their real name and face attached? Or being taped being a racist with their face uncovered, or full on identifying themselves? That's just being stupid.
I think if someone's had no prior instances of racism, and their behavior at work has never raised reason for concern, the most that ought to be done is mandatory sensitivity training, requirement that they remove any affiliation with the company from their social media, and regular check ins with HR that wind down after enough time has passed.
A second infraction would result in termination.
But if you're saying shit with the company name repped, you're fair game to be fired.
Don't forget companies have no reason to be loyal to or protect their employees.
A company that doesn't fire a viral racist is likely to suffer backlash. A company that does is likely to be applauded.
What's better for the bottom line?
Same thing that's better for humanity overall: don't be racist.
physcial discrimination, is wrong. ideals and belfi discrimition is not. why beacuse opions. belifs and ideals do not effect reality fire me cus im a kk or naz or white, or not hire thats physcial discrimiation.. hate for being that. fin, but not hire/ fireing me not fin.
here's the thing
joe he's 30 . workd on forklift for 5 years, and dose community sevice, con, he's with the kk and has naz tatoo, , but he has a loveing wife, and 2 kids. ok
next you have a black mtf. that wears blm and sjws, and what ever, fresh from collage, no skills, at all
you will hire the black mtf. and 50 other poeple like them. ok
hire 50 people that are like joe
we both have gastions, who do you think will get more money and who do you think will go bank rupted and lose the job,
gussed my guys like jeo no. i won't, go bank rupted. but your employees you will go under.
why becuse, at the end of the day. the qestion is, what is in it for me,
idc if you hate white, black, alians hobbits, or even elves. if i hire you, you do you god dam fucking job, keep the peace, and work as a team. and if you cuases shit, i will fire your ass cus your not makeing me money , and i can't grow my company, and if i can't grow it, i can't support more people that is bad, cus if i can't do that, that means more homless at the end of the day. that means less money comeing in.
less workers, less products being sold, less money comeing in. less growth and power, so why the fuck would i hire a trany black person that has zero skills. that is insanity.
also to stabe you all people in the gut. like the fag above. saying oh rasicum is bad for bussnes, yaa right. if you make a product example facebook. oryoutube. or cosco whole sales store
and the ceo and the whole company where rascist to say white. a and I don't know blue people. ok
but they still let them in to shop cus it makes them money. now one would care. why. cus they can't delelte, they can't shut it down becuse it is ingrand and usefull.
so racisum vs benifits. ideas, vs realitys.
its like face book. i hate it, its a disgusting websit, but i can't deletet, why beacuse i have contacts on it, and they love useing. same gose with stores...
you can't get rid of stuff cus you hate there ideals. it dose not work like that at all.
this issome advice, shut up do your job, play nice make money. that is it. beacuse at the end of the day. when it all said and done, treat your workers with kindesss, why cus they make you money. and treat your fandom nice cus they make you money. lesson to hate. and your lessoning to none consumers. and none consumers do not make you money. look at last of us 2. the pander to none consumers, and ignore the fans, and what do you know, nught dog is dieing lols karma. at the end of the day , I DONT GIVE TWO FILD FUCKS WHAT YOU THINK. MAKE ME MONEY MAKE ME HAPPY, AND I WILL REWARD YOU WITH STUFF, MONEY, HEALTH CARE. RETARIMENT.
Like I said earlier, nuance is important, and is all too missing.
Still, there is no differentiation between racism and simply not supporting a movement. 'White lives matter' may have racist connotations as a statement. But someone saying they don't like BLM for reason x is not racist. So I don't support people losing their jobs for having politically unpopular outlooks, even if I don't agree with them personally. As the cliche goes, I don't agree with what you say, but I defend your right to say it.
People are hot-headed and stupid. They type without thinking. We should try and empathise with and understand people. Even if we find them distasteful. Our empathy should not be so limited. These are still people. Stupid people often, but still people. Also, that woman with the PHD above. Well, if that woman can get a PHD, then as I thought, PHD's are basically meaningless. To answer your question, in the instances above, yes it doesn't bother me particularly that they got sacked. But not the example on the other thread of that hot-headed woman. That wasn't racism.
Also, like I said on the other thread, just because people can be dismissed for nothing in the US, doesn't make it right. That's a US-centric outlook. Labour should have some rights, and people are still people even if you don't like their opinion. One shouldn't be too gleeful in them losing their jobs and suffering. Although like I say, it's probably justified in the situations above.
I think the problem is how you start out at birth. I believe 95 % of us aren't racist. I believe the problem is starting point/ similar but different from silver spoon. I think instead of handing out money when when your older, you hand out (as government) money to all families to level out their opportunity, including pushing them into better households safer neighborhoods, or make neighborhoods they in safe driving resources there including enough police that they are instead designated to take cats out of trees not forced and told to zap your car with a radar gun. Just cut out the qouta. Completely. See Europe with police. They there for peace but can be themselves. Over here they pushed like hamsters one stop to next. I think it's the environment. Elevating everyone to same playing feild. Then after 18 years it's on you to do better. I think that other races start with hardship. And that is the problem. Not the color of your skin. Being raised with opportunity. Real opportunity that anyone can get where they want if they work for it, and it's not so due to the class segregation increase. Etc. Also I think racism keeps us under control less United. You need everyone together and on the same page. There are plenty of people here who if they know their parents made 15-30% more on income with more opportunities. So us pitting against each other and voting someone in whom is not us isn't a win. You start with mayor's. The mayor of every town in the United States is someone you know. Then push one up to governor etc. And do your part. Do your part to vote. Mayor's win many time by just a vote. 1. So do that. Let's do something that changes our environment. And not attack ourselves into a third world country. We don't live in times to make civil war adjustments. Because every country more built up now. We don't see it but turn third world and watch our trade go to shits.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
Cancel culture is real and if only applies to one side of the fence. I have never used a racial slur online or said posted a confederate flag, white supremacy posts or “white lives matter”. But I work in an industry where at least about 80 percent of the staff are Democrats. When I got my job 5 years ago I had to sign an agreement that they would do a deep dive on all my social media accounts. There were no problems of course but still I didn’t like that at all.
But seriously have you ever heard of anybody getting fired for being openly Antifa, black Hebrew Israelite, communist or supporting violence (rioting and looting) against the “so called” system? As far as I’m aware of no. Cancel culture only applies to people who don’t adhere to woke left principles. Funny thing is they are now starting to eat into each other. A sitting NYT columnist got fired for writing a positive op Ed about republican Senator Tom Cotton. Is ridiculous.
This marxism will never be satiated either. Next they will start firing people who just LIKE conservative posts (technology exists go do that). Corporations cave to leftists organizations who threaten to boycott their service, target their advertisers/consumers and run negative publicity about them.
The left is pushing this shit to a dangerous breaking point. People on the right don’t like getting rough but we will if we have to defend ourselves. Never apologize for exercising free speech if you didn’t explicitly call to violence.
Where people make their mistake is in thinking that free speech exonerates you from any consequences. It doesn't. So you can go ahead and say whatever you want, but if the company you work for feels like you are aren't representing them in the way you're supposed to then you gotta go. These companies and brands are about money first, and once you start jeopardizing that then it's all bets off.
Sure, you can say whatever you want. But that doesn’t stop Bob from down the street from decking you for what you said. Say what you want, it doesn’t make you immune to the consequences. And companies don’t have to have racist bigots working for them either. Bottom line is you watch what you say online. 🤣
@charismatic110 any company that fires a person for harmless sentences of a social media. "All lives matter" is harmless. To fire someone for that makes no sense. The US are just irrational about this because of what happened with Jeorge Floyd. So happy to live in a country where people are actually rational and don't fire people over trivialities.
@ThisIsMyOpinion his name is George. And All Lives Matter is harmless to YOU. It may not be what a particular company's brand is about. But good on you and your country.
It does mean freedom from a number of consequences. Persecution shouldn’t be a consequence for speaking ones mind. It’s not about money, companies go women and broke all the time, it’s about ideology, fitting in, appeasing the mob lest they flay you. It’s also worth mention that your assumption is that they deserve it. It’s even more apparent how gross this cancel culture behaviour is when you’re getting cancelled over nothing, or someone else doing something near you. It escalates with purity spirals until we’re eating each other.
@AllThatSweetJazz I don't assume anything, nor do I particularly agree with cancel culture. But like I said, there are consequences for your actions. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.
What’s stupid is burning people at the stake for being racists when they aren’t actually being racist at all — and it wouldn’t matter even if it was true. It’s just psychos being gross.
@AllThatSweetJazz they aren't being racist by YOUR standards. You are just one person and you don't speak for everyone. Obviously the majority feels that they are, including their employers.
No, that’s not obvious. Most people aren’t bothered. It’s a small minority of people that make noise while everyone else doesn’t care. So firstly it’s not the majority.
But also, it’s not about how you feel or how everyone feels, their is a more impartial analysis of what people are doing. E. g if I’m just cracking my fingers casually, not that’s not racist — and if a bunch of people screams that it is... no, it’s not, that’s *them* being crazy.
And thirdly, it doesn’t matter if I have the minority opinion. Freedom of speech is specifically intended to protect minority opinions, now this isn’t necessarily the government at work, but the spirit of that should carry over: even *if* the majority was against me, that doesn’t make it valid to persecute me. That’s just tyranny of the majority.
But really it’s just a vocal minority threatening people with shaming from a complicit media that is all to happy to pile on in order to fulfill the narrative which lets them write the most clickable headlines.
@ StarryCrossing "Wtf? She didn’t say anything racist." That's the whole point. You don't get to decide what is a cancelable offense, the mob does. To them, "But I didn't do anything racist" is not a valid defense.
They will just say "Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes, so you should have watched what you said online." Then you're cancelled. You are at the mercy of the mob. It doesn't even need to be something you did yourself. A relative can do something the mob deems heretical and you can get cancelled. It will only escalate.
Those of us that know true history and how things have been since Civil Rights, knows that Democrats have a monopoly on Racism. Anything they disagree with is Racist now. The Elites have an agenda to divide us. The worst is they don’t hold their own to the same standard they force everyone else to abide by. Go to great lengths to excuse their behavior and will end up telling you that you’re the problem. It’s just about money and power with then. Snakes with a one track mind. When metoo came for Joe, nobody there. When Governor Ralph Northam dressed up in Blackface, looks like he is still the Governor today. Hunter Biden using N word frequently to a buddy online. Democrat Sheldon WhiteHouse is found out to belong to a white only beach club. Newport Beach club. He says “Their is many of them around.” His wife is on the board and he admits no minority members. Silence from the base Don Lemon has a Blackface cookie jar nothing to see there Joe Biden-If you don’t vote for me then you aren’t black. Best buddies and worked with a kkk member. Him and Obama spoke at his funeral nothing to see there Media finally releases a picture it suppressed that was taken in 2007 of Barry Soetoro and Louis Farrakhan. Nothing to see there. Joe Biden saying blacks people are too stupid to use a computer. I could go on and on and that’s just from recently.
They hate Conservatives so much we have seen many hate crime hoaxes where the victims did it to themselves. You’re wayyyyyyyyyy behind to think this is just starting the firing of white people. It started under Obozo.
I think they should. If I was a boss or business owner of a company and found out someone was being racist, I have to consider the feelings of my other employees and protect them as well. Let alone could you imagine the financial hit I'd take if I decided to keep that 1 person that inturn made multiple people leave my company? You have to consider the impact that social media has on businesses right now to. Businesses that are found supporting any kind of culture bashing or racism are being boycotted, by word of mouth alone they are losing valued long term costumers.
Well I mean you can even look at just the recent events with this whole movement in the first place , people have been getting rid of long time friends and family even over there opinions let alone statements there making on social media.
I don't think that makes sense. People have the right to their opinions. That doesn't make them bad persons. I mean if you support Nazi regime and want a genocide that makes you a bad person. To say All Lives Matter does not make you a bad person.
Unfortunately, I have to agree with the employers. My reason: they have to guard the interests of the rest of the company and the other employees. A single inflammatory post could jeopardize everyone's employment.
Whether you realize it or not, you are a salesperson for your employer. Your friends and family will definitely make the connection. And if your friends list includes business professionals, you can bet that they will look at you and the rest of the company and think very critically if they should be doing business with you in the future or not.
I don't know about you. But if my company shut down and I lost years of benefits and retirement savings because my employer lost a multi-thousand or multi-million dollar contract over one person's social media post, my life would be turned upside-down.
Many companies have a morality clause or what my old employer called a spotlight policy. By working for companies whether we like it or not you are a face of said company. Normally this representation ends when you clock out and take off the uniform or badge... however in big news scandals you just broght your baggage on a companies doorstep. Not firing them could hurt there customer base and as a result every other person working there.
In short if your going to be an ass, do it in private lol
If their social media account or whatever they used to express their opinions shows who they work for it's in the best interests of the company to fire the person. However if the person making racist or perceived racist statements doesn't list their employer or have any ties to the employer where these opinions are shared then no, an employer shouldn't have the ability to fire you for something you say in your personal time. This is still America and whether you agree with what someone says or not doesn't matter because if speech is truly free it practically guarantees that someone will say something you find profoundly offensive
And I just thought of this. If the person sharing these racist or perceived racist opinions is a well known spokesperson or the "face" of a company and they share these opinions without doing so anon then yes they should be fired because it would hurt the company not to do so.
Yes they fully deserve to lose their jobs. Most companies have work place polices and want to go by a certain image and don't want to be associated with certain things such as racist bigots. So if you're being a racist bigot either irl or online you fully deserve to be fired. And for the people who are racially harassing people irl they should face criminal charges for harassment and hate crimes. I wish the new San Jose CAREN act would go nationwide.
Yeah it literally was probably in their contract when they got the job and they probably skimmed over it. Also employers have the right to fire you for any reason. It said this in my contract when I got my job. It’s just a tough topic in general.
I voted no because of what the word "Racist" means today. It used to be used to describe people who hated and/or wanted violence against a race solely because they are that race. Now you are called racist and "canceled" if you say something like "I support the idea that Black lives matter but believe that the organization BLM are a bunch of thugs that are using race to riot and steal stuff" This is pure truth because you can see BLM people pulling down statues of abolitionists and former Slaves. Or another truth "The problem is not the police but the culture in the black communities that lead to black people committing crimes at rates far higher than any other race. So the change that needs to happen is people taking responsibility for themselves and stop blaming white people".
Yes it’s true that some don’t care about racial injustice, and use it as means to riot and loot, but it doesn’t change the fact that minorities are killed because the police aren’t trained correctly, and that we need police reform so that minorities aren’t dropping left and right like flies.
The police could always use for training but the idea that unarmed minorities are getting gunned down like crazy is a lie. Last year only 9 unarmed black people were killed by the police and 11 unarmed white people were. Out of those 9 only 3 where not trying to get the officer weapon or just straight attacking them. You also have to look at the areas these deaths happen in which were mostly high crime areas where police have to be very careful because also last year 89 officers where killed.
I don't support or condone racism, but I'm of the opinion that someone's person life should almost always have no bearing on their occupation. Only in cases where an aspect of their life is of direct relevance should their life have impact on their occupation, like if someone was a chemist and had access to chemicals but was caught making some sort of mass destruction device with those chemicals. So if these people were in direct contact with customers, yes, they should be fired because their racism can negatively impact a customer's experiences, but if they aren't working with customers, I don't think they should be fired.
Home > Society & Politics > Polls > There has been a recent increase of firings for people being racist online via social media. Do you agree these people should lose their jobs?
Most Helpful Opinions