NationStates

Costa Fierro wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So yeah, this does feel a little like "when you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" really.

Nah, it's more "we're forcing you out if you have different political opinions". You wouldn't feel the same way if someone who had a liberal leaning was forced out of a company for their political beliefs. In this case, he was outright fired which is a lot more blatant.

It happens all the time in the red states in private industry. You just never hear it even reach the media as the local news knows that the majority of viewers/readers are Republicans who love to see Democrats suffer.

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:businesses are not supposed to fire their employees for their political views anyway

Political beliefs are not a protected characteristic in any state's anti-discrimination laws. Businesses can fire their employees for political views anytime they like.

Except in states where it's blatantly put in anti-discrimination legislation. But that's mostly Democrat voting states to begin with. Usually covered under political affiliation of party.

Tmutarakhan wrote:

Cekoviu wrote:businesses are not supposed to fire their employees for their political views anyway

Political beliefs are not a protected characteristic in any state's anti-discrimination laws. Businesses can fire their employees for political views anytime they like.

I actually didn't know that. That's pretty messed up.

What Google failed to do (Defend Trump supporters being harassed) was bad.

Having special mailing lists for 'every lifestyle under the sun except for traditional heterosexual monogamy' was kinda dumb but nothing apocalyptic.

Really worth a lawsuit though?

Targovia wrote:

Liriena wrote:Leave it to a fascist to be pedantic about whether Nazism is fascist.

Yeah how dare he claim that National Socialism isn't real fascism. It's not like Stalinists and Marxists and other commies do the exact same thing with their failed states.

1. How is this related to the topic?

2. National Socialism is fascism, saying it's not is like saying that Scotsmen do not put sugar on their porridge.

3. Whataboutism doesn't change this fact.

Liriena wrote:

Shofercia wrote:
Bing ain't comparable to Google, anymore than Yahoo is comparable to Bing. As for SJW's and ESPN, here ya go: https://nypost.com/2017/02/14/espn-fire ... iams-suit/



https://www.snopes.com/2017/08/23/robert-lee-espn/



Yep, his "crime" was the name Robert Lee. If he name was Gangsta Fish, he would've been totally fine.

Yeah, a bit overreaction-y.

Shofercia wrote:http://www.breitbart.com/sports/2017/05/17/no-social-justice-warrior-left-behind-espn-unveils-new-lineup-bad-thought/

I wish I gave a single solitary shit about whatever Outrage News has to say about "SJWs".

Not everything on Brietbart is crap, and even a broken clock is right twice a day. I'm not saying that Breitbart is right twice a day, more like once a week, but they can be right. In the points that I cited, they listed specific instances of SJW whining by ESPN. Bomani Jones is an awkward moron, and ESPN lost customers, most likely because of his rambling rants. As a result, quite a few ESPN staff were laid off. That doesn't suddenly change if Brietbart decides to agree with it. If Breitbart said that 2+2=4, would you argue that 2+2=5?

Great Lakes Municipalities wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote:Great Lakes Municipalities: *** Warned for "all X are Y" trolling. *** Try brushing up on the site rules.

Okay, so if I said "like many in the alt-right" instead, would that have been better?

I reported you. If you'd have shown that bare minimum of nuance then I personally wouldn't have reported you.

How you choose to behave with that information is entirely in your hands.

Hirota wrote:

Great Lakes Municipalities wrote:Okay, so if I said "like many in the alt-right" instead, would that have been better?

I reported you. If you'd have shown that bare minimum of nuance then I personally wouldn't have reported you.

How you choose to behave with that information is entirely in your hands.

Okay?

Seriously, the flame wars must have been crazy lately if you can get warned for something as silly as saying the alt-right is filled with manbabies.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:What Google failed to do (Defend Trump supporters being harassed) was bad.

Having special mailing lists for 'every lifestyle under the sun except for traditional heterosexual monogamy' was kinda dumb but nothing apocalyptic.

Really worth a lawsuit though?

I don't think a lawsuit would be worth it if it was apocalyptic.

The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp wrote:Really worth a lawsuit though?

Wrongful termination definitely.

Cekoviu wrote:

Tmutarakhan wrote:Political beliefs are not a protected characteristic in any state's anti-discrimination laws. Businesses can fire their employees for political views anytime they like.

I actually didn't know that. That's pretty messed up.

If you look up California Labor Code (sections 1101 and 1102) you'll see:

1101. No employer shall make, adopt, or enforce any rule, regulation, or policy:

(a) Forbidding or preventing employees from engaging or participating in politics or from becoming candidates for public office.

(b) Controlling or directing, or tending to control or direct the political activities or affiliations of employees.

1102. No employer shall coerce or influence or attempt to coerce or influence his employees through or by means of threat of discharge or loss of employment to adopt or follow or refrain from adopting or following any particular course or line of political action or political activity.

The new york times in 2015 had an article that talked about this:

For private employees, who account for about 85 percent of the work force, the First Amendment’s guarantee offers no protection from being fired for something you’ve said, either in the workplace or outside of it, as on social media. That’s because the amendment addresses actions by the government to impede free speech, not by the private sector.

And while federal laws bar employers from firing workers because of such variables as their race, religion and gender, there is no such protection for political affiliation or activity.

A handful of states and localities address this issue, among them New York, California, Colorado, North Dakota and the District of Columbia. The broadest-based laws, such as those in California and New York, make it illegal to discriminate on the basis of an employees’ political activity or beliefs in or out of work, Ms. Brantner said, unless such activity interferes with the functioning of the business.

So Tmutarakhan is patently wrong in claiming NO states have legislation protecting political beliefs. California is one of them.

Great Lakes Municipalities wrote:

Hirota wrote:I reported you. If you'd have shown that bare minimum of nuance then I personally wouldn't have reported you.

How you choose to behave with that information is entirely in your hands.

Okay?

Seriously, the flame wars must have been crazy lately if you can get warned for something as silly as saying the alt-right is filled with manbabies.

It probably doesn't help that that's a sexist slur.

As for the OP, apparently it was the youtube CEO that got him fired because the memo hurt her feelings, Susan Wojcicki.
She apparently did not understand the science he posted and assumed that overall trends about groups apply to all within the group.
"Republicans tend to own guns and democrats tend not to." She would apparently parse this sentence as "Republicans own guns, democrats don't.", suggesting a lack of nuanced thinking troubling for a CEO, but common among ideologues.

If he wins the lawsuit or causes Google to settle, that'll be a pretty bad own goal for women CEOs being taken seriously.
"Woman couldn't understand science, gets feelings hurt, loses company millions."

“But it’s different if you’re within a company trying to promote more women,” she added.

Statements like this aren't going to play well with a Jury. You have to bare in mind the overwhelming majority of the public rejects feminism.

"Promote more women? As in, you specifically take account of peoples sex when promoting them, not just their work?"

etc.

Now that's not to say I agree with that sentiment, merely acknowledging how it's likely to go in my opinion.

Further, Damore is merely the poster boy for the lawsuits claims. There's actually several google employees alleging discrimination has occurred.

More than that, HR is heavily implicated in the lawsuit, which means if successful, google will be wide open to further lawsuits and can't claim that it's an isolated failure or incident.

Ostroeuropa wrote:-snip-

Honestly can't believe you're still here
You've been on NS since forever!

Skimming through the lawsuit.

At what point does expressing an offensive/discriminatory political view become an actionable offense within a company, and how does that square up with law? What is more important, the substance of the opinion or how it is conveyed?

Someone could outright say "I hate (insert group here)", or they could convey the same point of view by "playing devil's advocate" or "just asking questions".