Where did the post you reply to mention "racists and sexists"?

The post mentions people afraid to speak up, like Gen-X members educated by super progressive people from the real student revolts in 1970.

Except that this education is not sufficient to keep up with the arbitrary word games of rich elites, who incidentally do not care about worker's rights.

> Where did the post you reply to mention "racists and sexists"?

The post pessimizer responded to explicitly mentions neonazis.

Good points all around. Since work is so vital to our everyday survival, and as pointed out, often health insurance, it should be much harder or with much better reason to fire someone than what currently exists today(which, in most states is nothing). I by no means intended to advocate for chiseling out special protections for bigots or antagonists.

I'll admit to a little frustration with people who act like current law (usually the first amendment) protects people from "cancellation" by private actors. But I'm more open to arguments that we should create new employment law that makes it harder to arbitrarily fire people. I don't think this is a good idea, for the record, but it is a reasonable argument to make. Many other countries have much stronger worker protections, which work well for them. I don't personally think they would fit with all the other interlocking policies in the US, but it's definitely not a crazy thing to discuss. But it's also not the case that it's a first amendment issue.

It is crazy the lack of protections around firing people. People fear that it would be harder for businesses to fire someone so they would be less eager to hire. But then you connect any health services to being employed and you created a big hole in the overall plan.

Health care should not be linked to employment. This is the original sin underlying a significant number of problems in the country.

This is why I don't understand why businesses aren't demanding universal health care and a universal basic income. Employees are much less expensive when one is not providing health care, and also less expensive when pay provides a marginal increase in quality of life instead of all of subsistence.

Businesses aren't demanding these things because they would take away their leverage over their employees. You need the employer for your income and your health insurance right now. Why would they want to make it easier for you to leave them?

I think that’s the same reason why I subscribe to the conspiracy theory that the US military opposes both universal healthcare and free of cost college and university education.

I think overall businesses don’t care enough about higher costs because at the end of the day they can just fire me without providing cause if I cost more than I am worth to the business.

There was a thread about cloud services such as cloudinary and why businesses put up with the absurdly high bandwidth charges and someone explained to me that the business isn’t paying for bandwidth charges, it is paying someone to solve their business needs. As long as fragile meat bag humans serve the business needs, I think businesses will employ us.

The US military has no official position on those things at all, and the actual people making it up run the gamut the same as any other cross section of the population. By far the greatest factor impacting recruiting is the overall state of the economy and how easy it is to get any other job, but surely you don't think that means the US military actively sabotages the US economy and job market to boost recruiting.

Word. Your last point is also right on, and the most irritating.