No, you define it.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement? Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it? I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line? As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Please see my response to the other person who responded to my comment.

https://lemmy.world/comment/25791834

By today’s standards, yes, this seems tame. But keep in mind the context. She had made numerous right-wing and fringe statements before (e.g. questioning the efficacy of COVID masks), and this is basically equalizing the treatment of Jews by the Nazis to people making hateful comments about MAGA. It’s a pretty insane and inappropriate comparison. I will say I think she had a point later, when she argued she was discriminated against because the network hadn’t fired other actors who compared Trump to Hitler. Both statements are similarly disrespectful to the victims of one of the worst atrocities in history (although I would also qualify that they’re not equally disrespectful—Trump does at least admire Hitler and arguably aspires to be him).

I guess I’m saying I can understand why they fired her. Part of me doesn’t agree with it—I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach. I don’t agree with her statements and think she should have had the right to say them without reprisals, but she also has no right to be surprised at the consequences in my view.

Yes. Yes it is.

Edit: Specifically, she was fired for making the following statements:

The actor continued to say, “Because history is edited, most people today don’t realize that to get to the point where Nazi soldiers could easily round up thousands of Jews, the government first made their own neighbors hate them simply for being Jews. How is that any different from hating someone for their political views?”

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/arts/gina-carano-fired-from-mandalorian-after-social-media-post

Many landlords have complained that the program’s paperwork and obligatory inspections are onerous. Legislation passed by Congress this month attempts to address this issue by making participation easier. Mr. Carr said that for large companies like Greystar that market themselves as offering luxury rentals, screening out vouchers can also be a way to exclude low-income tenants.

There it is.

It is the best kind of true: technically.

I don’t remember any glee in the press on the Iraq war (maybe from Fox, idk, I’ve never watched them much). As for the crack epidemic, that has more to do with the CIA and racism in society at large than it does bias in the media.

Your contention that all the media outlets are controlled by corporate interests and that none of it is accurate is a biased and pessimistic take. I realize a lot of people on Lemmy are anti-capitalist, but you let it skew your vision of reality too much.

Yes, it has. Most American news sources have reported about as accurately on current events as news sources from any other developed nation. The right wing ones (and by relatively recently, I would say it started when Fox News started spewing a deliberately skewed narrative in the 1990s) are a good point of comparison, since they clearly operate on a political mandate, whereas the other mainstream outlets are far better about just reporting the news.

That is a naïve take. Press organizations in the U.S. have always been private because Americans have historically been very suspicious of the government and wouldn’t trust it to report the news in an unbiased fashion. Private media has worked very well for America for most of its history. It’s only been relatively recently that right-wing rich people have started creating right-wing media sources that skew reality to the extent we see nowadays. And it’s still mainly right-wing publications being the bad actors. Thats why right-wingers are so keen on installing conservative CEOs and having companies run by them buying left-wing media organizations. They don’t want good reporting.

Now, now. There’s a handful of millennials waiting to hoard it after they die. This is how the trickle-down works, people, let it trickle. Gosh, so impatient…

He wants his own Trump/Epstein island and he wants U.S. taxpayers to buy it for him.

Unsurprising.

deleted by creator

Wah-wah-wauauauauauh….

It’s like all the old guys are like “yeah this is it, this is the future”

I don’t think this is true. I think it’s more like people who run companies and are excited about how much money AI will save them in salary pay are gung ho about it. Everyone else is rightly concerned.

2013? Dude, I’m haunted by 1996.

Can someone please explain to me the logic behind allowing states to redistribute their districts every few years? The problem isn’t that the GOP redistricts in a way to oppress black voters or that the Dems redistrict to support them, it’s that we allow these shenanigans at all. Why are we allowed to have these battles in the first place? There has to be a better solution.

You know what, the amount of energy you’re putting into defending your misguided position here tells me you’re not very interested in this conversation, and I don’t care to expend any more energy with someone like that. Suffice it to say, my previous statement still stands: people who hold your position have more empathy for criminals than their victims. I’m glad I don’t live in a world where we let criminals off with a slap on the wrist and just tell their victims that punishing them would be cruel and pointless.

I will not be responding to you further.

No, it’s really not.

Then you should already know the answer to your previous question.