Quo Vadis GOP?

[DGuller]

I think you're getting too technical, even some lawyers here don't understand the difference between discriminatory acts and the thought crime of being racist.  We're going to need some time to process that difference before we get into the weeds of what kind of discrimination is covered and not covered.

Being racist is a not a crime, or even a wrong under the civil law in itself.

Being racist can expose a company to civil liability though, as explained above. I.e. if hypothetically a senior manager went on the record making public statements like "black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously," and that manager did not hire qualified black women candidates or fired otherwise qualified candidates, that company is likely to get sued and lose civil verdicts.

I concede that having a manager with a racist history might be a liability problem employer has to deal with in some way.  That still covers only a small portion of people with jobs.  Historically twitter mobs have not often checked the job grade and job responsibilities of the perceived offender before getting them fired.

Thank you for also confirming that the Civil Rights Act does not cover thought crimes.

[Zoupa]

Do we have any data on folks being fired for these free speeches they gave? This seems to be a uniquely american phenomenon.

[Sheilbh]

Do we have any data on folks being fired for these free speeches they gave? This seems to be a uniquely american phenomenon.

This is why I think it's downstream of employment law. For a while, for some employers I think it was just less hassle to fire someone and avoid being the main character of the day on social media. In countries where you have some process or employment rights that was outweighed by the risk of unlawful dismissal claims.

And obviously I'd say this but I think there was probably a class angle. For example I think in more traditionally protected sectors like academia it would normally be suspension and investigation not just firing - because I think those employees probably have better protection, unionisation and requirement of some process. If the employee was in a a more precarious sector/weaker worker power (like the Latino telecoms employee) then it would be very, very easy to fire them and unless there was a backlash (as in that case) a boss would face few consequences for that while a few days of bad social media would cause issues.

Obviously I can't help but note that the American right did not rush to provide workers with contractual protections and  actually just wanted the boot on the other foot (plus attack the few protected sectors left).

[The Minsky Moment]

The US is pretty "special" for the very paltry employment protections it has.  The civil rights laws only cover certain protected classes. Anyone else can usually be fired any time for any reason unless their contract says otherwise. So yes an employer can fire you for saying mean things about Charlie Kirk, or alternatively for not getting someone's pronouns right.  But it's a pretty awful reason to fire someone in either case.

[Syt]

I'm in favor of freedom of speech. However, I think intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

[Razgovory]

I'm in favor of freedom of speech. However, I think intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

I bet "intolerance" can be defined in very creative ways.

[Zoupa]

So can free speech.

[Syt]

I'm in favor of freedom of speech. However, I think intolerance shouldn't be tolerated.

I bet "intolerance" can be defined in very creative ways.

You're right, best not to try, then, in the first place.

[Admiral Yi]

You're right, best not to try, then, in the first place.

Disagree.  That's the fatal flaw in wokeism.

[Syt]

Kindly elaborate.