People who have bad opinions should not of course have jobs. They should die on the streets, as untouchables...
Of course this holds as long as "the good side" has the power to make companies fire people for their tweets. If and when conservatives get this power (like e.g. they did in the Hoover or McCarthy era), this practice would be wrong again, and it should all be about "freedom of speech" and right to work, etc.
/s
Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?
And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots...
>Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?
First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument?
There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc.
Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist.
There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc.
And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this).
Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work.
If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.
Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!
People who try and evangelize their religious beliefs for example can be bigots who think they're righteous. By the same token, atheists who evangelize their lack of beliefs can be bigots who think they're righteous. Either way, they're assholes that I don't want to work with.
There were plenty of claimed religious justifications for businesses who wanted to discriminate against mixed race couples, but in the end, that didn't really matter. There is no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself.
Sure, there's "no functional difference between bigotry with "nuance" and bigotry itself". But here the word bigotry is used twice in a weaselly way, making it a circular argument, that assumes what it should instead prove.
There's, however, a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - which was my point.
Except if nobody can have a position in sex/race/etc matters that goes against what an enlightened minority holds, except if they are bigots. Even if there are members of said sex, race, etc agree with the person -- and the "enlightened minority" is often a self-appointed hodgepodge of noise-making people.
My point is that there's a functional difference between bigotry and a nuanced position that touches on sex/race/etc relations - and that the latter does exist, and is often called out unfairly.
Now, one might believe that such a nuanced position is impossible to exist (without being bigotry).
That is, one might believe that nobody can have a stance on a matter concerning sex/race/etc that goes against what some enlightened minority holds, without being a bigot.
I try to point that this is wrong, via reduction ad absurdum.
And my first argument is: there are opinions called out as bigotry which some of the members of the group they reference also hold (e.g. saying something about group X which some X also believe, and being called a bigot about it).
If one doesn't believe that those opinions are nuanced, and not necessarily bigotry, then they should also accuse those members of group X as bigoted against themselves - which is absurd.
My second argument is: why would one believe that an accusation of bigotry can't be off? Especially since any random person/mob can make such accusations, for whatever purposes, and with whatever faulty reasoning -- and not only some ultimate arbiters of truth.
There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us.
My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.
Not allowing someone to work would make them open their own business. They would hire like minded people. They would push some mainstream businesses into bankrupcy.
Sounds like a recipe for more racism. Like you are doubling down.
In Canada we would work with the person and tell people to leave your opinions at home. Magically opinions change quickly when you get to know one another. It is hard to hold on to such views when the reality is so different.
Second, what's a offensive (e.g. homophobic, sexist, etc) is quite an arbitrary thing these days, with all kinds of things that would perfectly fine for a leftist Democrat to say in 1990 or 2000 or 2010 being considered as such in 2020, and things getting weirder by the minute.
As far as US being #1 economy, that generally happens when the rest of the developed world is in rubble (post WWII). Men being sexist and racist was not necessarily a contributor.
Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business?
Nobody said it was "good". What was said, to quote, is: "So, maybe personal opinions of that nature are not related to being a good developer or a good car mechanic or hair dresser" -- in other words, that it was not really a contributor (pro or con).
>Another trend was more people smoked cigarettes. Do you thinking smoking cigarettes means a more effective business?
No, but I do think whether an employee smoked or not said nothing about how good they are at their job.
You can't know that. The fact businesses almost universally moved to eliminate these tendencies speaks to some evidence that it was to their detriment.
And as far as I know, smokers are not being penalized in the work place, despite taking more breaks than non smokers.
No, there's not. The universe doesn't care about morals. Societies build their morality. It changes in time and place. If you lived in 1840s South you'd statistically be a racist. If you lived in a tribe you'd have their morality.
>any action anyone takes is their right because freedom
If there's no morality, then any action anyone takes is neither right, nor wrong.
But for a given morality (e.g. 2020 US morality) an action can be right or wrong, or something in between (as morality is complicated, not black and white -- e.g. a murder of someone to steal them, or a murder of a someone who tried to rape you is not equally bad, even though it's equally murder).
>It's equally bad when anyone says anything bad because... reasons.
That doesn't parse.
It's very easy to make a case that workplace discrimination happened, or that a hostile work environment was fostered, when there are public discriminatory tweets by the perpetrator that corroborate with the incidents. It's equally difficult to claim ignorance as an employer when they are, again, public.
I think people's main issues with this specific software/practice are:
1. It evaluates Liked tweets – if you believe tweets to have too little context to be accurate signals of how a potential employee would behave, liking a tweet contains even less context.
2. Any service that provides data via widescale scraping and auto classifying can and will eventually be reduced to an "authoritative" score.
Start creating your fake profile now. Start preparing to game your online profile to navigate this new normal.
But, it’s still Orwellian and presents a sinister forced blend of personal and professional life