I recently read a story (AITAH) where a persona who worked as a university professor (a neighbour) was throwing branches into someones back yard and trespassing (to smoke). After the police didn't do anything, they contacted their work (the university) and later considered social messages of the form "University professor did <this>". I was fairly uncomfortable with this; I feel these kind of things need to be handles by e.g. courts or similar, not in via social pinion where a persons profession is leveraged against them.

I also dislike arguments of the form "If they believe <this> how can they treat <some demographic> fairly", or even "People of <some demographic> will feel uncomfortable working with them"; but I accept they have some validity.

I feel a true answer is more complicated; i.e. before we answer these problems, we consider:

- is someone not know to express racist opinions therefore not racist?

- what political-compatibility criteria is needed to work with someone?

- if person A doesn't want to work with person B; is that persons As problem, or person Bs?

- how objective are hiring/firing/promotion criteria? to the extent that they are subjective, what goes into that, and what is fair? Are promotions fair if they are random, so long as they are not biased wrt race/sex/etc? Or is a random process unfair because it is arbitrary? If it is biased towards arbitrary criteria that is not the usual demographics (e.g. ppl who wear glasses) is this fair?

- what moral obligation do employees have in their private lives? Does this obligation differ by job type? Do all jobs have obligations e.g. do corp contracts imply them too; and are employees compensated wrt these obligations?