← Back to context

Comment by rachelshu

6 years ago

I don't think, given Scott's recent defense of Steve Hsu, that he'd really want people fired for doing ill-advised things, even if they could be reasonably construed as dangerous, unless harm was demonstrated. It's still disappointing that the journalist is making this choice.

Point taken regarding the Hsu case. Maybe I jumped the gun there.

I don't want it to be the norm for any journalistic organ/employee to function/perform the way this one did. There are many ways to accomplish adoption of that norm, including (but certainly not limited to) firing people who do that.

There is a clear division to be made between firing someone for what they do on their own time vs. actions they take in the course of their employment for you.

When being a responsible journalist is your job, it's not unreasonable to expect to get fired for not being a responsible journalist.

  • I think it’s completely unreasonable to fire someone for one instance of wrong behavior (with very narrow exceptions for something like stealing or sexual abuse).

    I’m very happy to live in a country where you cannot fire people just like that, even if they do something wrong. You have to give people second chances. I don’t get this “fire them” approach to anything wrong something does.

    People make mistakes. That just happens. To always fire people because of that makes no sense to me.

    • Of course people make mistakes, but it's a mistake to confuse a deliberate and fully informed action with a mistake. The journalist knows Scott's concerns and has plenty of time to think through things and come to a decision, and came to the wrong one.

      If I was a janitor and spilled a bucket of water on the floor it would be wrong and cruel to fire me for that mistake. On the other hand, if I saw a customer come in to our store and said "Yo customer, we hate you, get out and never come back!" And then grabbed a bucket of water and dumped it on the customer... Well then I think firing me would make sense. The former was a mistake. The latter is an intentional and deliberate bad action.

      3 replies →

I think it's just in general dangerous and disruptive for the entire world to know who you are online. They will find you and threaten you and everyone you love. Sure only 1% of them are actually dangerous but it only takes one bullet or knife in the back from a psychotic person to end everything. Or just someone doing some crazy made up nonsense like pizzagate. The loonies are out there.