> But for the right, it became a potent symbol of the tech industry’s intolerance of ideological diversity.
To me, totally missing the point. Not just "for the right". To many who would consider themselves mostly aligned with left wing politics, myself included, this is just the latest in a long line of media (social and news) driven forced punishment for people guilty of expressing a viewpoint or just generally doing something a bit poor taste in public. It doesn't really matter if they've done wrong. It's not a considered or proportional type of response.
Sure, there are far bigger injustices in the world than someone losing their job, but this sort of thing is wrong because it's for the wrong reason. It's headlines driven HR.
I'm sorry, if you spend your time at work writing manifestos that ignite culture wars instead of working - you should be fired. Wanna write a manifesto? Create a blog post. I would be fired if I wrote a manifesto like this at my job - without any publicity
I don't like Donald Trump any more than the next person (and I would never vote for him), but watching people line up actively encouraging punishing (or firing) people based on who they voted for is crazy, especially because about half the country voted for the guy.
I come from a small town where Trump dominated Clinton, and most people I know voted for Trump holding their noses. They considered him to be a less-bad option, and Thiel even said as much in interviews. Yet folks are being smeared for being "complicit" and dragged as if they are Trump, or agree with everything he stands for.
I don't think that's ever happened before, at least publicly. Every candidate I've ever seen has major flaws, and people that lack those flaws and even despise those flaws voted for them anyway. I get that Trump is particularly incompetent, but if voting for a candidate that wins the election is a punishable offense maybe we should rethink our political activism.
I'm pretty sure the media has a large part to blame. By getting the view out that Trump was so bad, people started really believing it. You can see it in articles or tweets where parents say their young children are frightened. Kids don't analyze politics, they just believe what you tell them. So what have these kids been told or seen that actually made them scared?
After the election I saw people, smart people that work in the physical sciences, crying. Yelling that people will be killed now. That they should give up on their careers as it no longer matters.
These people obviously have bought into something along the lines of "literally Hitler". And if you really believe that, then his supporters are "basically Nazis". And given how Nazis are portrayed (and not just them, anyone involved in Germany's WWII effort is labeled a Nazi regardless if they were), anyone remotely like them forfeits all rights.
So it's not about disagreeing on any particular issues. It's that in their mind, the US just elected a monster and there's no excusing it.
This makes sense if you believe he's literally an evil monster. Just saying "politics!" doesn't give people a free pass to think or do anything at all.
> I don't think that's ever happened before, at least publicly.
The left got pretty hysterical about Bush too (did you know he was a Nazi, just like Trump?). I would not be surprised if being outed as a Bush voter would have been considered career-limiting in SV at the time. What has changed in the time since is a dramatic increase in our ability to discover and record people engaged in wrongthink and let our outrage go viral through social media.
Except that the google engineer this article refers to was not punished or fired for supporting Trump; he was fired for circulating a memo which claimed there were immutable biological reasons why approximately 50% of the workforce was unfit to work in his industry.
I wouldn't fire anyone to punish them for their decision in the voting booth.
I would, however, consider firing someone who voted for Trump because of their lack in critical thinking skills–if such skills are relevant to their job.
The difference is in the employer's motivation. Say you've hired someone with a medical condition as a truck driver. As it turns out, they tend to randomly fall asleep at the wheel every few weeks. If you can't find a job where it's safe for them to do so, you will probably have to let them go. That doesn't mean that you harbour ill will towards them, or that you seek to punish them for this behaviour (that they have no control over). It only means that it's a bad fit.
But, to be honest, there are certainly people who wish others to be fired based on their vote. But that isn't actually a new phenomenon: it's the basic reason behind the principle of the secret ballot. If people voluntarily let others know how they voted, all the usual mechanisms of social feedback will kick in: Because people feel that a vote for Trump has and/or will harm themselves or others, they will treat the people who did it with the same sort of retribution they would inflict on someone they saw littering, or hitting their dog, or any number of actions they consider harmful.
It's unfortunate how both political extremes are just the same:
The right uses the state to censure.
The left uses people and popularity to censure.
To fight the dictators I can simply join a militia and fight a civil war.
But how to I fight people? I'm not popular, I'm not cool, I'm not socially connected. I am no one. How do I maintain my rights when those depriving me of them are everyone else?
If I'm targeted by the populist mass, where is my recourse?
I'm lucky that I live in a country where I could just study and pass a test to be a public servant, where I'm guaranteed a job and won't be fired based on public outrage. But what about others?
I think that's only because of how our country's electorate has evolved. The left would be happy to use the state to censure, and the right would be happy to use people and popularity to censure. You could find examples of both sides using populism or legalism to advance their agendas.
>To fight the dictators I can simply join a militia and fight a civil war.
You say that pretty casually! To me that sounds almost as daunting as being targeted by a populist mass.
Are you saying that the far right and the far left have the same policies? If they have different policies, how are they the same? Are they essentially the same? Does that mean the content of one's political beliefs is not essential to their political identity? I don't get it so please clarify.
It is a little absurd to say that this is censorship by the left. Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences, and the manifesto has been widely distributed.
What rights were deprived from the author exactly? Did I miss a story where he got arrested?
> Netflix’s Mr. Hastings warned Mr. Thiel last August, a few weeks after Mr. Trump had accepted the Republican nomination for president, that he would face consequences for backing Mr. Trump.
> In contrast, Mr. Hastings, a supporter of Hillary Clinton ...
From my PoV, the fact that Hastings has received no backlash for supporting Clinton after Trump won, is a sign that right-wingers/conservatives/Trump supporters are more tolerant of the opinions of left-wingers/liberals/progressives/Clinton supporters than the other way around.
Right-leaning professionals who live in major urban areas are completely surrounded by left-leaning people: almost all of their colleagues, friends, bosses, etc. I know many conservatives in these environments who would never admit it outside of a very trusted circle. They would never think of making their job a platform for their views, like left-leaning people routinely do (often at the encouragement of management and HR). They fear precisely what happened to this Google engineer: a smear campaign, weaponized outrage, and a ruined career.
I'm sure there's challenges to being a left-leaning person in rural Georgia. But moving to rural Georgia isn't necessary, or really even an option, for people seeking economic mobility.
From my point of view, the religion-proxy-based travel ban, the abandonment of the Paris agreement, the attempt to dismantle the ACA, the (so-far attempted) banning of transgender soldiers, the refusal of the Census office to collect LGBT+ statistics, and the stepping-up of civil forfeiture, are all signs that right-wingers/conservatives are not tolerant of the existence of many people, let alone the opinions of left.
I desperately hope this is not, in fact, the prevailing sentiment of half the country. But to be convinced, I could really use examples of right-wing politicians affirming that LGBT+ people, the non-Christian religious , and people who can't afford their own living expenses are welcome in society.
Are these the tolerant right-wingers still chanting "lock her up" and wearing "kill all the liberals" t-shirts[0] at those space-time-confusing election rallies Trump does?
That's because the election was over, and they got to taste victory, at least for a little while. Most people don't feel the need to lash out at other people when everything just went their way.
Pro tip: unless it's part of your job, don't talk about politics at work. It's your place of work, it isn't /r/politics. If there is a specific policy that you'd like addressed, bring it up without a bunch of political baggage.
On a side note: The article mentions alt right people complaining that a lot of SV companies' cultures are left leaning, which I think bizarre. There are plenty of industries that lean far right, in fact, unless the company is a non-profit or is in the public sector, in my experience the typical company culture is more right leaning than left. In most companies outside of SV, diversity programs are almost non-existent or just something that is briefly mentioned on the careers page.
The fact that Google or other SV companies have robust diversity programs and have cultures that lean left is an anomaly and freaking out that you aren't included in these companies' diversity programs or that you feel on the outside of the company culture screams of entitlement and ignorance of the actual reality that minorities and women face in the rest of the job market.
>Mr. Hastings, the chairman of a committee that evaluates Facebook’s board members, told Mr. Thiel in an email dated Aug. 14 that the advocacy would reflect badly on Mr. Thiel during a review of Facebook directors scheduled for the next day… "I’m so mystified by your endorsement of Trump for our President, that for me it moves from ‘different judgment’ to ‘bad judgment.’ Some diversity in views is healthy, but catastrophically bad judgment (in my view) is not what anyone wants in a fellow board member.”
Is it legal in the US for someone to judge a person’s political beliefs or a declared support for a candidate in a performance review? I can imagine that even if the answer is ‘no’ that things might be different on a public board where it is less ‘performance review’ and more ‘public face of the company’, but the idea of judging someone professionally on the basis of their personal politics at the ballot box seems a little disturbing to me.
The article claims, and as a (former) lawyer this seems plausible, that in California this would be illegal as it pertains to employees.
But you're right that executives are often treated differently, and board members even more so (since they're not just management - they're not employees at all). But I believe that under federal law political views are not currently a protected status, so it would not necessarily be illegal to fire someone for their political beliefs. Though this might seem odd, it is perhaps a behavior that is sufficiently deterred by the fact that it would be very bad for business in many cases. Remaining employees could be upset by it, customers and potential customers could be alienated, and legal challenges could be mounted under various theories.
Another reason that this could be less common that might expect, given that it's legal under federal law, is that some states are not at-will employment states (like California is), so it's generally harder to fire employees in general.
One of the ironic things about this is the right has fought for years to empower corporations, and disempower workers, then goes apoplectic when Google Inc sees him as a liability and disposes of him like a used tissue. Damore sees the left as the problem, then files an NLRB complaint to try to protect himself. The biologically IQ-superior Damore might be surprised to find that the worker protections of the NLRB have been systematically hollowed out over the preceding decades by his conservative pals.
Conservatives and Republicans fought decades to enshrine the power of corporations and the 1%, and to undermine any worker autonomy. I have to roll my eyes at all this. I guess Damore found out the hard way that he's not part of the biologically IQ superior clique he thought he was part of.
At this point everybody's made up their minds, assigned heros and villains and victims, and now flood every comment board on the internet to repeat their own existing beliefs.
Has anybody's mind been changed at all through this whole ordeal? Or are we just going to sail through another historic moment of cultural reckoning with our comfortable beliefs firmly intact and affirmed the whole way through?
Non-white and grew up with a very religious background - even lived in a religious commune-like environment for a few years. The current environment in the bay reminds me of those days in many ways - the incredible pressure to visibly signal virtue through study, fasting, public displays of humility, etc. It's easy to trick yourself in thinking you actually believe and this is the only way, but it quickly fades once you're out of the environment
I believe it's illegal in the US to fire someone for their political leanings, but not if you say something outrageous like women aren't built for tech jobs (or whatever he said).
That being said, it's never a good idea to get on a soapbox about politics at work (or anywhere really). It doesn't make a difference in your listeners opinions and only gets people with opposing views aggravated. Best to just think about the issues and vote come election.
"That being said, it's never a good idea to get on a soapbox about politics at work (or anywhere really)."
The difference, presumably, is that people inside Google are already talking about all kinds of other political issues on internal message boards. They want to believe they're different, that they're in a new kind of enlightened environment where politics can be discussed by reasonable people without danger.
But this is ridiculous. It's easy to talk about things for which there's wide agreement. You don't even notice those things as politics. It's only politics when you disagree.
I don't suppose the human beings at Google are any better at talking about this stuff than any other human beings. If they want their workplace policies to reflect that, then fine! But there are a whole bunch of implicitly accepted leftist positions that they shouldn't be talking about, either. That's the hard part, because, again, they don't even notice those positions as politics.
Here are some Google executives saying exactly this:
Just as Uber and AirBnb are slowly revealing why we had hotel and taxi regulations in the first place, this Google case shows why our grandparents established those old-fashioned ideas about politics in the workplace.
> I believe it's illegal in the US to fire someone for their political leanings, but not if you say something outrageous like women aren't built for tech jobs (or whatever he said).
It's easy to circumvent the legal issue, just have a vague code of conduct and claim the employee broke said code of conduct.
> I believe it's illegal in the US to fire someone for their political leanings
In most circumstances it's perfectly legal to do so. Exceptions include states with specific laws that protect political affiliation (which includes California) and federal government employees.
Someone asked in another HN thread. Federal employees are protected, and some states protect political affiliation including California: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14953325
"Supporters of women in tech praised Google." .. total lockdown of discourse is helpful to women? Outright firing anybody who dares to ask for open discussion is creating a more woman friendly working environment? This is pretty sexist. They are openly saying that in order for women to succeed we need authoritarian thought policing, and that if you are a woman you automatically agree with their agenda. Something strange is going on here.
Welcome to 2017 where we're currently in the throes of an ideological civil war.
Politics used to be a gentleman's game. Sure, you argue and huff and puff over bills, and the opposing parties viewpoints, but at the end of the day - you found compromise. The last decade or so? No such thing. Politics is now a bloodsport. Total victory is the only option.
- Different viewpoints? Not allowed.
- Compromise? Not allowed.
- Rational discourse? Not allowed.
- Don't believe what I believe? Your're a racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist.
The Liberal ideology that has dominated politics for the last decade is now eroding, the Republicans own Washington DC right now and its rather off putting to the people who used to be in power. The whole Google issue just highlights that this isn't going to end anytime soon - but it sure didn't start with Trump, and it sure didn't just "land on Silicon valley's doorstep" this past week.
I think the larger question is when is rational discourse going to return? Google had an incredible opportunity to create a forum to discuss the issues the author brought up. Instead, they had a knee jerk reaction, based on the current environment, and fired the guy. They would rather deal with a lawsuit, a ton of backlash and a social media furor I haven't seen in a while, instead of having an open dialogue on what happened and why this guy believes what he believes. Can him, put him the box and label him an evil person and let's move on.
Nobody wins, and nothing is gained.
Another wasted opportunity.
Sad and depressing this is where we are as a country.
Silicon Valley is like USSR in 70s-80s: you can say anything, but for saying things not in the party's line you would be expelled from a higher social class.
[+] [-] anewhnaccount2|8 years ago|reply
To me, totally missing the point. Not just "for the right". To many who would consider themselves mostly aligned with left wing politics, myself included, this is just the latest in a long line of media (social and news) driven forced punishment for people guilty of expressing a viewpoint or just generally doing something a bit poor taste in public. It doesn't really matter if they've done wrong. It's not a considered or proportional type of response.
Sure, there are far bigger injustices in the world than someone losing their job, but this sort of thing is wrong because it's for the wrong reason. It's headlines driven HR.
[+] [-] nova22033|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] vasilipupkin|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] intortus|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DiNovi|8 years ago|reply
Also, 10 page manifestos to your company are never good ideas.
has everyone forgotten Jerry McGuire?
[+] [-] austenallred|8 years ago|reply
I come from a small town where Trump dominated Clinton, and most people I know voted for Trump holding their noses. They considered him to be a less-bad option, and Thiel even said as much in interviews. Yet folks are being smeared for being "complicit" and dragged as if they are Trump, or agree with everything he stands for.
I don't think that's ever happened before, at least publicly. Every candidate I've ever seen has major flaws, and people that lack those flaws and even despise those flaws voted for them anyway. I get that Trump is particularly incompetent, but if voting for a candidate that wins the election is a punishable offense maybe we should rethink our political activism.
[+] [-] MichaelGG|8 years ago|reply
After the election I saw people, smart people that work in the physical sciences, crying. Yelling that people will be killed now. That they should give up on their careers as it no longer matters.
These people obviously have bought into something along the lines of "literally Hitler". And if you really believe that, then his supporters are "basically Nazis". And given how Nazis are portrayed (and not just them, anyone involved in Germany's WWII effort is labeled a Nazi regardless if they were), anyone remotely like them forfeits all rights.
So it's not about disagreeing on any particular issues. It's that in their mind, the US just elected a monster and there's no excusing it.
This makes sense if you believe he's literally an evil monster. Just saying "politics!" doesn't give people a free pass to think or do anything at all.
[+] [-] justinsaccount|8 years ago|reply
46.6% didn't vote
25.6% voted for Hillary Clinton
25.5% voted for Donald Trump
[+] [-] xienze|8 years ago|reply
The left got pretty hysterical about Bush too (did you know he was a Nazi, just like Trump?). I would not be surprised if being outed as a Bush voter would have been considered career-limiting in SV at the time. What has changed in the time since is a dramatic increase in our ability to discover and record people engaged in wrongthink and let our outrage go viral through social media.
[+] [-] shanev|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] DiNovi|8 years ago|reply
Trump is a liar but also emotionally honest; people knew what they were voting for when they "held their noses" and that's no excuse
[+] [-] mbillie1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] matt4077|8 years ago|reply
I would, however, consider firing someone who voted for Trump because of their lack in critical thinking skills–if such skills are relevant to their job.
The difference is in the employer's motivation. Say you've hired someone with a medical condition as a truck driver. As it turns out, they tend to randomly fall asleep at the wheel every few weeks. If you can't find a job where it's safe for them to do so, you will probably have to let them go. That doesn't mean that you harbour ill will towards them, or that you seek to punish them for this behaviour (that they have no control over). It only means that it's a bad fit.
But, to be honest, there are certainly people who wish others to be fired based on their vote. But that isn't actually a new phenomenon: it's the basic reason behind the principle of the secret ballot. If people voluntarily let others know how they voted, all the usual mechanisms of social feedback will kick in: Because people feel that a vote for Trump has and/or will harm themselves or others, they will treat the people who did it with the same sort of retribution they would inflict on someone they saw littering, or hitting their dog, or any number of actions they consider harmful.
[+] [-] d0100|8 years ago|reply
The right uses the state to censure.
The left uses people and popularity to censure.
To fight the dictators I can simply join a militia and fight a civil war.
But how to I fight people? I'm not popular, I'm not cool, I'm not socially connected. I am no one. How do I maintain my rights when those depriving me of them are everyone else?
If I'm targeted by the populist mass, where is my recourse?
I'm lucky that I live in a country where I could just study and pass a test to be a public servant, where I'm guaranteed a job and won't be fired based on public outrage. But what about others?
[+] [-] Brendinooo|8 years ago|reply
>The left uses people and popularity to censure.
I think that's only because of how our country's electorate has evolved. The left would be happy to use the state to censure, and the right would be happy to use people and popularity to censure. You could find examples of both sides using populism or legalism to advance their agendas.
>To fight the dictators I can simply join a militia and fight a civil war.
You say that pretty casually! To me that sounds almost as daunting as being targeted by a populist mass.
[+] [-] boobsbr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danharaj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] heurist|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] albinofrenchy|8 years ago|reply
What rights were deprived from the author exactly? Did I miss a story where he got arrested?
[+] [-] albinofrenchy|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] and0|8 years ago|reply
Getting fired over a creepy manifesto that you chose to make public isn't censorship, and not a threat to your "rights".
[+] [-] boobsbr|8 years ago|reply
> In contrast, Mr. Hastings, a supporter of Hillary Clinton ...
From my PoV, the fact that Hastings has received no backlash for supporting Clinton after Trump won, is a sign that right-wingers/conservatives/Trump supporters are more tolerant of the opinions of left-wingers/liberals/progressives/Clinton supporters than the other way around.
[+] [-] wildmusings|8 years ago|reply
I'm sure there's challenges to being a left-leaning person in rural Georgia. But moving to rural Georgia isn't necessary, or really even an option, for people seeking economic mobility.
[+] [-] mbillie1|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tangent128|8 years ago|reply
I desperately hope this is not, in fact, the prevailing sentiment of half the country. But to be convinced, I could really use examples of right-wing politicians affirming that LGBT+ people, the non-Christian religious , and people who can't afford their own living expenses are welcome in society.
[+] [-] matt4077|8 years ago|reply
0: https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/08/the-tru...
[+] [-] cableshaft|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] Tasboo|8 years ago|reply
On a side note: The article mentions alt right people complaining that a lot of SV companies' cultures are left leaning, which I think bizarre. There are plenty of industries that lean far right, in fact, unless the company is a non-profit or is in the public sector, in my experience the typical company culture is more right leaning than left. In most companies outside of SV, diversity programs are almost non-existent or just something that is briefly mentioned on the careers page.
The fact that Google or other SV companies have robust diversity programs and have cultures that lean left is an anomaly and freaking out that you aren't included in these companies' diversity programs or that you feel on the outside of the company culture screams of entitlement and ignorance of the actual reality that minorities and women face in the rest of the job market.
[+] [-] docdeek|8 years ago|reply
Is it legal in the US for someone to judge a person’s political beliefs or a declared support for a candidate in a performance review? I can imagine that even if the answer is ‘no’ that things might be different on a public board where it is less ‘performance review’ and more ‘public face of the company’, but the idea of judging someone professionally on the basis of their personal politics at the ballot box seems a little disturbing to me.
[+] [-] gnicholas|8 years ago|reply
But you're right that executives are often treated differently, and board members even more so (since they're not just management - they're not employees at all). But I believe that under federal law political views are not currently a protected status, so it would not necessarily be illegal to fire someone for their political beliefs. Though this might seem odd, it is perhaps a behavior that is sufficiently deterred by the fact that it would be very bad for business in many cases. Remaining employees could be upset by it, customers and potential customers could be alienated, and legal challenges could be mounted under various theories.
Another reason that this could be less common that might expect, given that it's legal under federal law, is that some states are not at-will employment states (like California is), so it's generally harder to fire employees in general.
[+] [-] heurist|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mbillie1|8 years ago|reply
This is not in any modern sense "left" (please don't bother pedantically bringing up "classical liberalism").
[+] [-] balance_factor|8 years ago|reply
Conservatives and Republicans fought decades to enshrine the power of corporations and the 1%, and to undermine any worker autonomy. I have to roll my eyes at all this. I guess Damore found out the hard way that he's not part of the biologically IQ superior clique he thought he was part of.
[+] [-] rm_-rf_slash|8 years ago|reply
Has anybody's mind been changed at all through this whole ordeal? Or are we just going to sail through another historic moment of cultural reckoning with our comfortable beliefs firmly intact and affirmed the whole way through?
[+] [-] pmurT|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Clubber|8 years ago|reply
That being said, it's never a good idea to get on a soapbox about politics at work (or anywhere really). It doesn't make a difference in your listeners opinions and only gets people with opposing views aggravated. Best to just think about the issues and vote come election.
[+] [-] dionidium|8 years ago|reply
The difference, presumably, is that people inside Google are already talking about all kinds of other political issues on internal message boards. They want to believe they're different, that they're in a new kind of enlightened environment where politics can be discussed by reasonable people without danger.
But this is ridiculous. It's easy to talk about things for which there's wide agreement. You don't even notice those things as politics. It's only politics when you disagree.
I don't suppose the human beings at Google are any better at talking about this stuff than any other human beings. If they want their workplace policies to reflect that, then fine! But there are a whole bunch of implicitly accepted leftist positions that they shouldn't be talking about, either. That's the hard part, because, again, they don't even notice those positions as politics.
Here are some Google executives saying exactly this:
https://youtu.be/wa8nc27Jb8E
Just as Uber and AirBnb are slowly revealing why we had hotel and taxi regulations in the first place, this Google case shows why our grandparents established those old-fashioned ideas about politics in the workplace.
[+] [-] boobsbr|8 years ago|reply
It's easy to circumvent the legal issue, just have a vague code of conduct and claim the employee broke said code of conduct.
[+] [-] LyndsySimon|8 years ago|reply
In most circumstances it's perfectly legal to do so. Exceptions include states with specific laws that protect political affiliation (which includes California) and federal government employees.
[+] [-] vnchr|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] almonj|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] at-fates-hands|8 years ago|reply
Politics used to be a gentleman's game. Sure, you argue and huff and puff over bills, and the opposing parties viewpoints, but at the end of the day - you found compromise. The last decade or so? No such thing. Politics is now a bloodsport. Total victory is the only option.
- Different viewpoints? Not allowed.
- Compromise? Not allowed.
- Rational discourse? Not allowed.
- Don't believe what I believe? Your're a racist, bigot, homophobe, xenophobe, misogynist.
The Liberal ideology that has dominated politics for the last decade is now eroding, the Republicans own Washington DC right now and its rather off putting to the people who used to be in power. The whole Google issue just highlights that this isn't going to end anytime soon - but it sure didn't start with Trump, and it sure didn't just "land on Silicon valley's doorstep" this past week.
I think the larger question is when is rational discourse going to return? Google had an incredible opportunity to create a forum to discuss the issues the author brought up. Instead, they had a knee jerk reaction, based on the current environment, and fired the guy. They would rather deal with a lawsuit, a ton of backlash and a social media furor I haven't seen in a while, instead of having an open dialogue on what happened and why this guy believes what he believes. Can him, put him the box and label him an evil person and let's move on.
Nobody wins, and nothing is gained.
Another wasted opportunity.
Sad and depressing this is where we are as a country.
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] kushti|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] leemailll|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] esteves_|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] thecakeisalie1|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] and0|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] DiNovi|8 years ago|reply