The Black Forrest wrote:Galloism wrote:If he wasn’t on the clock, the company has no right to police his behavior. If they want to police his behavior 24/7, they need to be paying him 24/7.
Employees are employees hired to do a job. Not slaves.
It would be just as inappropriate as it would be to fire someone for writing a “God is Dead and Religious people are idiots” opinion article to the newspaper - even if your customers were predominantly religious.
Soo? If by his actions he is hurting his employer? He is exempt? Sorry there are ramifications for actions. Just as a community can punish you so should an employer. Especially with hateful actions.
Your solution is simply turning things over to the employee. Not exactly a solution. Being off the clock doesn’t give you the right to sticking it to the employer. Especially in such hateful manor.
The problem is not as simple as you would think. There has to be give and take.
I don't follow your logic here.. or lack there of.. What does the employee's personal political beliefs have to do with his employer? If he isn't wearing his uniform or claiming to be a face of the company outside of his work then he isn't sticking it to anyone. Getting doxed by a bunch of extremist loonies stalking him and trying to blackmail them is not the employees fault or problem. And nobody's being punished remember.. as this would take that possibility off the table. You can't punish a company for not giving into your demands when those demands are illegal.
The Black Forrest wrote:Galloism wrote:The problem is this line of reasoning is that you just justified firing people who participate in pride parades, or blm rallies, supporting the black panthers, or participating in a demonstration that devolved into a riot, or any one of a hundred million other political actions.
They people are seeking to exclude or intimidate people like the white supremacists.
He or she won’t be hurting their employer if the public understands the law is on the side of the worker, just as, with time, people who punished businesses for hiring black people or openly gay people or such gradually stopped. Because the law that protects workers from retaliation also protects employers from their customers when they all broadly refuse to engage in unjust and illegal retaliation.
This is all irrelevant. I know it's hard for some people to grasp today, with the edu system, esp higher, being what it is today in terms of critical, non dogmatic thinking skills.. so hold on.. People are well within their right to believe in things you don't. Rights don't stop where your feelings/ego/crusade begins. Unless they are
doing something illegal, protecting their rights is no different than protecting anyone else's in a free society.. in fact it wouldn't be a free and open society if it didn't. Some people need to learn how to get over themselves and gain some perspective!
Costa Fierro wrote:They say they applaud a recent "needed reckoning" on racial justice, but argue it has fuelled stifling of open debate.
There's no need for debate.
The reason why people are claiming that this "cancel culture" is a thing is because they've previously said things that are hateful, sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. that society no longer accepts or condones. And these people fully believe the opinions that they have and express, but cannot understand why it would cause hurt to people whom they are directed at. It's not surprising that we have people like J.K Rowling and Margaret Atwood signing these petitions, they're old, and still set in ways in which they believe their opinions and beliefs to be correct.
More to the point though this is not about freedom of speech. Freedom of speech discussions are never about the right to say something. They're always about people responding to what they say. Hence why I say it is not a freedom of speech discussion but a freedom from consequences. Because they want to be able to say things without being criticised. For them, criticism is tantamount to censorship and suppression, and therefore they believe that free speech should be speech that cannot be criticised.
Do not be fooled into thinking that they are defending a noble freedom enshrined in most constitutions around the world. They are defending their perceived right to be free from criticism and the consequences of their actions.
Grenartia wrote:All the whining about "cancel culture" and "Orwell gone mad" would be a lot more believable if the people complaining weren't guilty of totally shitty things, or being simps for them. It just comes across as really gaslighty instead.
If people don't want to face the consequences for shitty words and shitty actions, they shouldn't do and say shitty things. If someone has the freedom to say and do shitty things, other people should equally have the freedom to act on those things.
Yawn.. More of this fallacious non-reasoning..
"whaaaaa people want to take away our power to blackmail, intimidate and ruin people we don't like!!!" Seriously.. Come back when you have an actual argument and not just a logical fallacy pretending to be one.