Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Fires Newly Hired Ex-Facebook Product Manager Following Revelations of Past Misogynistic Comments
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Internaut
macrumors 65816
For context - the Are Bosses Dictators bit of this blog entry:
Friday 14 May, 2021 - Memex 1.1 (substack.com)
While obsessing over rights given and taken away by governments, we collectively ignore that bit of our life (at least for most people) that provides little in the way of rights and zero democracy.
Because his voicing of his views is disruptive to the workplace and thus it is not unreasonable to remove him from that workplace. He is still free to hold and voice those views, no one is forcing him to change.
Diversity and inclusion does not mean you must include viewpoint antithetical to your values.
This instance is not about someone's innate characteristics but about opinions they hold and voice. To invoke Godwin's Law, you could not hire someone who is LGBTQ who espouses Nazi viewpoints publicly; the decision would be based on their expressed opinions, not because they are LGBTQ. Viewpoints that disrupt workplaces can be used in hiring and firing decisions. Sometimes someone is so disruptive that getting rid of them is the only option.
Because there is a compelling public interest to prevent discrimination based on sex or gender.
Not sure your point is here.
Last edited:
Criminals get second chances but yet those who have voiced a thought, a view or an opinion many years ago which does not sit well with todays society, they do not get a second chance, they get instantly fired.
Internaut
macrumors 65816
There is no "now". That has always been true and continue to be true.
Hopefully she'd say what any decent mother would: You're doing well to avoid them, then.
Ssshhh. They don’t like to talk about that. Then they need to make up excuses.
And who made those rules and are they universally accepted?
I think it’s very disruptive and disrespectful for the other employees to dig up something a colleague said or wrote years ago. Ostracizing people with different views and justifying that with their own made-up rules and trumped-up charges is just Nazi communist.
groups form their own norms
generally yes by members of groups, or they do things to avoid violating them and risk being removed.
You're entitled to your opinion, I think ~5 years is not that long ago. He wasn't some teenager posting stupid things when he wrote the book.
In my opinion, he is not some innocent victim or a PC witch hunt.
No, it's human nature. Every group has its own rules and norms, and abiding by them is the price of admission. We chose to associate with people who generally have the same views, and react to those we find distasteful.
He wrote the book, so holding him responsible for what he wrote is not a trumped up charge.
Uh, Nazism (fascism) and communism are two very separate economic systems.
I think you have just rescinded your ability to enter serious debate for life.
This is basically communist. You are either a part of the revolution or you are against it. You are either one of us or you are the enemy. This sorta mentality strips away any chance of rational thinking and meaningful change. It deepens political divide - a nation so divided and failing apart. Supporting everything your group supports and denouncing everything your rival supports is nothing but power grab.
Along with most of the liberals here. Nazi is one of their favorite terms when they talk about conservative politics
Hardly. The there is no each to his ability, each to his need involved.
How so? In this case a group simply said we do not want to associate with him based on his expressed views.
That is far different from simply not associating with someone based on their viewpoint. The have not tried to suppress his book, etc.
I agree the us vs. them mentality is very troubling and not healthy and unfortunately groups across all viewpoint spectrums fall into that trap; but that is far from the case here.
Name calling is unfortunately a tactic used by both sides to demonize the other, witness conservatives calling liberals socialists or communists.
There is nothing wrong with being socialist. Canada is kinda socialist. Nordic countries are too, and obviously, China also. Works great for them.
Never said there was, just it’s a label used to demonize the other side because to some it is a bad thing and thus a way to motivate them.
Last edited:
Being call a socialist is a little different than being call a nazi. But keep making excuses
However, in both cases they are used a pejorative terms to attack another group. I doubt right wingers calling people socialists consider it a lot less of a pejorative than Nazi, though oddly enough, the Nazis were socialists.
More to the point: Why do you keep arguing that a person should bear no personal responsibility or consequences for their own action?
You mean in the way that North Korea is Democratic?
No, in the way a market socialist economy can use market forces such as prices to determine production and distribution of goods and used state control to allocate the profits from state owned and private companies to social use. Socialism encompasses a broad set of beliefs in how to run an economy and is not a synonym for communism; despite some that use it that way. In the US, for example, there are electric cooperatives owned by the consumers and operate to benefit them rather than make a profit for shareholders, that is a socialist economic construct.
As for North Korea, I find any country that includes Democratic in its name isn't. Its version of economic socialism is a planned economy that is state controlled.
This is not a way to have a civil conversation. You don't just slap down anyone who dares to disagree with you. You don't try to turn it around on them to try to make sure they never dare to open their mouths again.
Of course they should. "People" have the freedom to quit and go work at another company, for whatever reason. That's a basic human right. But, why would "people" have the right to determine which other individuals the company hires? Which human right is that?