[ SECRET POST #3057 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3057 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.
[Polandball]


__________________________________________________



03.
[The X-Files]


__________________________________________________



04.
[Nick Lea/Krycek]


__________________________________________________



05.
[Plague Inc Evolved]


__________________________________________________



06.
(Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.)


__________________________________________________



07.
[Grimm]


__________________________________________________



08.
[Discworld]


__________________________________________________



09.
[Magi the labrynth of magic]


__________________________________________________



10.
[The Clangers]












Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 03 pages, 052 secrets from Secret Submission Post #437.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[(Anonymous)]

My question, I guess, is where you draw the line between what kind of repercussions for speech are and aren't acceptable. Because that looks to me like a repercussion for speech of the kind that you're saying is permissible and I'm honestly not sure how you differentiate those two things.

Look at the Brendan Eich affair. Was it acceptable for there to be a public campaign for him to resign or be fired? Would it have been acceptable for Mozilla to fire him, instead of for him to resign? If not, how do you say one of those is acceptable and the other isn't? But the kind of campaign that pressured Eich is exactly the kind of campaign that you seem to be defending. So, I mean, those are the difficulties of the position that you're outlining here, to me.

(To be absolutely clear: I in no way agree with any of Eich's political views and find them morally, politically, and factually wrong)

Re: Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

[dethtoll]

I want to apologize right here because I honestly thought you were one of my fanclub members trying to play a "gotcha!" game on me, so please excuse me for viewing your original question with some suspicion.

Anyway, moving on to your question: No, I don't think employers should have the right to dismiss someone just for their political views. If they're not being abusive about it, what's it matter? That doesn't mean there can't be polite arguments between employees. Though I do think there are limits -- a UKIP supporter (or a member of Christian Identity, for that matter) might necessarily create a hostile work environment just by being there, but that would need to be proved.

The Eich example is a special case, however, largely due to the fact that Eichs himself was in a leadership position -- that, to me, is a more serious issue than your coworker being a Tea Partier or whatever. Here's a guy who made a donation to a hate campaign, didn't play it up or talk about it, and it wasn't until years later that OKCupid dragged it out when he was made CEO. Actions have consequences. He has a right to his opinion and to donate to whoever he wants. But that doesn't mean people shouldn't be allowed to disagree with him, or that OKCupid shouldn't have been allowed to publicize the issue, or that his employees shouldn't be allowed to be upset. What occurred was a leadership issue: if he had stayed, he would have been unable to lead effectively. He was not fired, he was not run out by the "thought police" (I'd really like for people to stop using terms half-remembered from a book they read in high school -- or more likely a friggin' pop song -- to describe public reactions to unpopular opinion) and it is disingenuous to paint people upset by his hiring as CEO as a "lynch mob" or other broad-stroke brush. His hiring went against the company's own standards and office culture. His politics were personal and he kept them out of the business, but being hired as CEO and thereby the face of the company was a tone-deaf decision that put his company at risk internally and externally.