Quote Originally Posted by nanashi View Post
I agree with a great deal of this. What doesn't sit right with me is this idea that a company owner can't be free to let someone go based on their actions. Why is Kevin being a Nazi and making Nazi statements publicly and then saying 'sorry' a reason Karen MUST keep Kevin on and not say:"You had a good run, but really, Kevin?"

And it's great if Kevin gets it about not saying the Nazi stuff outloud, but does he have a RIGHT to a job? That's so far away from the typical views on workers have next to no rights that I'm used to in the U.S. that is seems terribly inconsistent.

I'm not saying I think it's a bad idea for someone to stay at a job and re-make their modus operandi, but is it ALWAYS a bad thing for a person to get the feedback, 'I don't want you representing my company because you have broken my trust, and even if you now mean well and are working on yourself, I can't yet trust that you totally get it and won't express some of your hate-filled or bigoted views EVEN accidentally' ?

YES, I agree the person's development matters, and they need love, but....is an employer supposed to be your support system in a capitalist society?


Sometimes cancel culture (as long as it isn't doxxing/violent/harassment/punishing/condemning) sounds an awful lot like natural repercussions.
Honestly nanashi, I know exactly what you mean. If, as business owner, I was also was confronted with an unrepentant bigot, I'd fire that employee without a second thought. I'd want to keep my workers content and productive, and that involves running a tight ship. I'm there to make money, not waste my time babysitting some dipshit troll. And let's face it, that's what these people often are: disingenuous trolls trying to push other people's buttons and test society's tolerance for bad behavior.

So, how do we maintain a tolerant society while tolerating intolerance? The solution won't come from codifying human interpersonal relations into political dogmas. The personal often shouldn't be the political, and these attempts to politicize and bureaucratize life — to fit complex human emotions into lumbering, top-down systems with precise consequences for imprecise actions — will never be persuasive.