In a perfect world, this wouldn’t be a problem, but we’re far from that.
Imo people today do that to make fast money and well… I don’t personally know why I should be forced to accept or approve that kind of way of money making. I don’t respect drug dealers, corrupt businessmen, nor YouTube scammers. I also don’t respect people who perpetuate mental harms by producing porn and contributing to these issues. I do respect startup founders that solve actual problems, teachers who help improve failing schools, or scientists who don’t accept corporate funding to paint an inaccurate picture.
I value persistence, virtue, and meritocracy and no amount of social force will make me accept certain behaviors.
Just being honest with my opinion.
And people are free to disagree with my pov as well, and do whatever they want.
Eg, if you were a person of faith (I have no idea if you are), and I was a militant atheist (to be clear I'm agnostic), and I told you that I thought all religion was harmful and said something disrespectful like, if you believe in an imaginary friend who grants wishes you aren't qualified to be a doctor/engineer/etc (this is not a position I actually endorse or an appropriate way to talk about religion) - can you see how you might tell me to get lost?
Money isn’t the end all be all. Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.
> I don’t personally know why I should be forced to accept or approve that kind of way of money making.
but if there's no harm, and porn is consensual, all is good - right?
> Id say if someone can make porn and publish it they can surely do something else with that “creative” energy.
why should they if it, by your metric, is doing no harm?
Well, I was using thought experiments to avoid calling you out, but if you want me to be forthright, I can do that. I don't want to get into an argument though, honestly I don't even want to get into a debate, so I'm gunnuh say my piece and you can take it or leave it. I just don't have the energy to get into a debate. (Not to say you aren't free to respond however you see fit, I just probably won't respond if you defend your position.)
I do think you are taking a position which is harmful. For more reasons than I can get into in an HN comment, but the highlights are, you're exaggerating the potential for harm; you're projecting flat narratives in your head onto real people and using that to justify removing their bodily autonomy (eg, not everyone makes porn because they're desperate - some people are exhibitionists [no, I don't understand why either], some people enjoy that kind of work, some people do it for reasons neither of us have imagined); generally you're trying to impose your moral standards on to others.
Exactly this. There are plenty of couples out there making videos of themselves having sex, and it's not my place (or anyone else's) to tell them they can't.
1. I would argue the bar should be "more harm then good", otherwise most of human activity would be banned.
2. Since you've given no compelling evidence that that is the case, you don't have much of an argument for preventing it.
This is why “my own time” should be my own time. If I cause harm to an individual, there are already laws to deal with that.
If I have yet to cause financial harm to a corporation and they cannot articulate how my actions during time in which they do not pay me they should not be allowed to even consider firing me.
Things, imho, will improve when the default to seeing a video/post is to think “that’s AI, not Jim.”
Can’t prove it’s me? Can’t fire me.
This is all ok. The problem is when we start firing people or shunning them for stuff we don't like.
Do you not see a conflict of interest? How much of a distraction would that be? That's not so black and white to me.
Let's say I read paleontology for fun. Can I avoid Young Earth Creationists socially, or am I shunning them?
Not hanging out with someone is obviously fine, and it's your choice.
Firing or publicly shunning someone is a totally different matter.
Why is firing a different matter? If I'm an employer in an at will state, I most certainly can fire someone who's not a member of a protected group, like atheists, say.
And firing is obviously different from "avoiding socially" because you don't pay people to hang out with you.
To state my perspective by way of personal anecdote: I find it shitty that I have neighbors who like to run their errands with pistols strapped to their waists like they want to be Wyatt Earp when they grow up, but my acceptance or non-acceptance of the situation is irrelevant. I don't feel like I'm forced to accept the situation just because I have no right or power to change it by myself. As an aside: I bet if I tried to go get those neighbors of mine fired for their open-carry, I would end up shot.
But besides that, if you think about it. Firing people for doing porn as a side job is effectively forcing people into doing porn as a full time job. OnlyFans doesn't fire people for having a regular day job, so guess what remains as a revenue source.
I work for a government entity, and am subject to a variety of ethics laws that dictate certain aspects of my behavior outside of work. It’s onerous and heavy handed, but at least there are rules and case law to provide some level of due process and fairness. It still sucks - I actually have a social life, and I have to be very careful about who I’m around and that there is no problematic perceptions.
With private sector employers, especially entities that aren’t publicly traded, you don’t always know where you stand and the rules are subject to the whims of people whom you may not even know.
If you aren’t in a public facing role authoritatively representing the company or using the company to promote your outside activity, it should be a non issue. How many gays were drummed out and persecuted before the law protected them?
That seems like society working as intended!
A properly managed corporation would instill that mindset, stop things from being hostile, remind others of that “right” and then go from there.
The problem is that all corporations ignore this right and hedge proposed changes in profit at the expense of the working class employee’s means to life or insurance or both.
But I agree with the argument "Judge the art, not the artist".
As Camus attempted to portray in "The stranger", the protagonist was on "a trial that judged his character and the ways in which he integrated in the society, not on a trial for killing an Arab".
Businesses themselves rarely fire people out of principle, but rather because of pressure.
(at least in the case outlined by GP, where the cause is "not criminal, not involving employees/customers, not done under the guise of being an employee")
The pressure often comes from the outside, and it's indeed very difficult for a business to fight it.
I don't think GP is arguing for it, I also don't know if I am arguing for it... but... IMO for those cases the only simple "solution" I can see is to legally protect those people from being fired for unrelated reasons, so that business has legal plausible deniability, and hopefully doesn't suffer the consequences itself.
In the rest of the world where you can't fire without a valid reason, it is very easy for them to say "We can't legally fire them for things they do unrelated to their job".
Most importantly, it should be in BLACK AND WHITE in your contract when you start. If you're someone who needs to abide by a code of conduct different from the norm outside of work hours, that absolutely should be something you're made crystal clear about, and are agreeing to.
For both your sake, and the sake of the institution having to clean up the mess otherwise.
At will employment exists for good reason. You can quit your job at any time for any reason and your employer can fire you at any time for (almost) any reason. There are a very narrow set of circumstances for which your employer cannot fire you, and this is by design. The government should have as little control as possible over who you hire and fire and why.
But here's the catch: different people have become more strict about different things.
Same, you will not want to hire a famous womanizer. It will create chaos in your company or with clients. And you can find a huge number of examples to confirm that if what people do outside of work something that is considered negative, even if it is legal, it is a problem to hire them; maybe to keep them.
I've never heard of a free-time pork actor ruining the reputation of a company on its own.
Also, doing something you like doing isn't being a degenerate. That's Trump-speak.