Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme Court case on speech

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by klmadfejno on Monday May 03, 2021 @01:48PM (#27028262)

> that still doesn't require me to stay away from them. if there is an opinion so bad that it actually is intolerable, (which the kkk obviously represents) then it is on us to do something about it. none of that affects whether i ought to socialize with these people or not. it only affects why. if my goal is to change them then i should be allowed to do that.

That's up to you then. Shunning occurs on various levels.

If you want to talk to someone in the KKK to discuss the merits of their opinions, be my guest. If you want to employ KKK members, I'm leaving your team. If I'm your manager, I might even fire you for making such a boneheaded decision.

Giving everyone legitimacy is a childish idea easily abused by bad faith actors.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Cheerleader’s Snapchat rant leads to ‘momentous’ Supreme ... by em-bee on Tuesday May 04, 2021 @05:49AM (#27035661)

i don't know how you connect talking to someone with hiring them. those are entirely different actions.

i might hire them after they renounce their kkk membership. are you ok with that?

where i am from, discrimination based on political opinions is illegal. on the other hand, political activism by employees is also not allowed. so i probably could hire someone who is not already known for their kkk membership, and you would not be allowed to fire me for that. they are allowed to stay as long as they are not becoming active. that scenario is unlikely to happen though because hiring friends is considered a form of corruption and strongly frowned upon. qualifications only.

but let's be clear. i am not giving someone legitimacy just by talking to them.

[ Parent | on HN ]