Comment by gwright
5 years ago
> Firing people for expressing "distasteful" views publicly is nothing new.
I don't think that is a correct synopsis of the concern. The concern is that there is no space to discuss the definition of "distasteful". There are also a bunch of amorphous terms being thrown around and any attempt to clarify those terms in general or to challenge how a person is using those terms or to explore the ramification of those terms; those efforts are themselves labeled "distasteful".
I'm hesitant to even list the terms that I don't think are well defined in our public discourse for this very reason. I anticipate that I will be immediately labeled as persona-non-grata for trying to clarify what the heck we are talking about.
> The concern is that there is no space to discuss the definition of "distasteful".
What do you mean by this? What kind of space is missing? Was that fact that being anti-war is distasteful something that was discussed and agreed upon in 2003, so that firing was alright?
Analogies are dangerous, but I'll give it a shot.
In your 2003 scenario, an analogous concern would be if someone pointed out that Saddam Hussein was indeed violating some UN provisions and the response was for that person to be fired because that observation was evidence that they were "pro-war" or not sufficiently "anti-war".
My observation wouldn't be there was no "right" to fire the person but instead would be that the logical inference that triggered the firing was faulty and ill-informed. If managers everywhere we reacting that way I might suggest that there was no space to discuss the topic without undo consequences.
I can be fired by an boss who thinks I'm being insubordinate, they have that right. But it would be helpful if that boss had some evidence that I was being insubordinate and didn't use my request to clarify my insubordination as evidence that I was being insubordinate.