Do you agree that the things you post online should get you fired from your job/bar you from employment?

>posting on Faceberg with your real name
>publishing anonymously

I can say whatever the hell I want to say on the internet. Try and take my rifle away.

She posted on Facbook with her real name and photo. You couldn't make a worse analogy.

after 2000 years there's no excuse for facebook

Jane Allen is my hero
Justice for Jane

>Do you agree that the things you post online should get you fired from your job/bar you from employment?

FUCK NO. What happens off the clock is none of your employer's business.*

*Exceptions: Breaking NDAs and the like, insider trading, spread gossip about or bad mouthing the company or its employees, being convicted of murder/rape/child molestation/drug use/arson/theft/treason/kidnapping, or leaving the country to fight in foreign wars or engage in international terrorism or high seas piracy.

was she anonymous?

She ought to have been. Poor albino gorilla.

I disagree with the general principle that individuals should seek to make others unemployed because of what they say. I also disagree with the general principle that employers should regulate what their employees say online. In the spirit of liberty, however, I do not believe either of these practices should be banned. They're just kind of assholish things to do.

That said, I think it is also foolish to say stupid things under your real name, or that you should use your real name at all for anything other than business. Anonymity and pseudonymity are practices that should be encouraged, particularly with regards to the Internet.

She probably agreed to a social media thing in whatever rules/contract/etc she received when she started working there. Lots of places have them. If you agree to it, you've no room to complain - you said "I acknowledge and accept this." If you didn't read it then that's your own dumb ass' fault.

I think it's fucking stupid, but go ahead and find a place where that isn't part of the rules instead.

No. There should always be a process towards being fired of verbal and written warnings.

That said, when you are employed by a company what you do generally reflects on the company, and this is often covered in your contract as well.

That said too, crying on public media about the actions of another person on public media is basically the same as "I'm going to tell your mom on you".
There are processes that we use to make complaints to organizations and they should be followed. Attempts at public shaming aren't any better.

Yes but with limitations. You really shouldn't be able to be fired for having opinions unless you are so vocal about them that the the bad PR you are creating from being too outspoken is cutting into your company's profits and they can prove it.

And obviously badmouthing your employer online is a pretty good reason to get fired too along with making threats or any other advocating of illegal activity.

However you shouldn't be able to get fired for doing stuff like making dongle jokes or anything like that.

Why do you think anonymous image boards exist?

>high seas piracy
kek

I believe in a free country.

If one of my employees threatens my business by doing stupid shit I should have the right to fire them.

If you are stupid enough to post things like this under your real name then yes, I wouldn't want you working for me.

>she offended the protected class
Off with her head!

But seriously, I welcome this and the backlash its going to spawn. It's obvious that shit doesn't happen in the reverse. Firing a jihadist is damn near impossible and obviously queen of the damned isn't going to lose her presidential pension because of her race baiting.

>Using Facebook
>At all

Deserved it.

not technology

I can't believe you faggots think there is a difference between screaming nigger into a megaphone in a public park and posting nigger on Facebook under your real name and your real photo.

You're free to turn a bigot mob against anyone you want
I'm free to turn a SJW mob against anyone I want

From another point of view, the employer is free to fire anyone for whatever reason. Unions? Rights? This is AMERICA

You can justify even opposite sides with the argument of muh freedoms. It's clear to me those words are void of real meaning.

except she works at a public school, which is part of the government, so is what she saying protected then?

Absolutely

Especially if your social media profile says something lik "Analyst at CompanyA" and you start spouting some shit
No boss is going to defend your racist ass in front of the media. You get fired the next day after posting something like that.

Hell I'd fire you not for the conents, but for being dumb enough to post something like that under your real name

>go to bar
>see first lady on TV
>start calling her a dumb ape and nigger
>next day a group of people show up to my work and complain to employer.
>get fired

Is this acceptable? Because what happened is exactly the same but on the Internet.

Yes actually it is.

What you do in private is private. No one can complain about you defecating... if you defecate in your bathroom!

But if you defecate in public, people will complain.

Not in india tho

No. Of course it isn't.

Good point! In India they understand that it is a wrong thing to do, and are actively trying to reduce it.

No, but I'm also not stupid enough to say anything offensive anywhere that has my real name attached to it.

People shouldn't have to live in fear of voicing their opinions like if they were living in the iron curtain or china.

>people should be allowed to say whatever they want with no consequences

That's half the trouble. Some people can find anything offensive.

That's pretty much fair. In fact, it is even better than OP's example because the complainants felt the need to make a complaint in person to your place of work.

Anyone can call someone a nigger online. Anyone can complain online. But when you do face up and do it in person you know that person is serious.

You are permitted to voice your opinion without fear of retribution from the government. The government does not have the right to censor you or otherwise punish you for what you say.

Those rights do not extend to the social sphere however and there your opinions will have consequences. Your employer and your fellow citizens DO have the right to punish you for what you say.

They should. I don't care if they are a nazi, a commie, or even advocate eating children; everyone should be free to voice their own opinion.

>Do employers have the right to punish you for being Jewish?
>Do employers have the right to punish you for not liking the Jewish?

t. hypocrite

And everyone should be free to not associate with people they don't like.

It's not part of the government, it's funded by the government. Public high schools are funded by the government, yet they don't have to follow the 4th amendment (the Supreme Court has upheld this) among many others.

No. The only exception is that if you compromise my reputation or spread classified information of my company.

I won't have any reasons why to fire you if you're doing a good work for me.

But I would have a conversation with you and advice you start to use anonymous accounts if you don't want to stain your own reputation. People get offended for the most nimble things these days, and it will come back to you if you get successful in the future.

Nothing to hide nothing to fear.

>Do employers have the right to punish you for being Jewish?
Of course not, because you can't control that.
>Do employers have the right to punish you for not liking the Jewish?
If you voice that opinion, yes, because that's called being antisemitic.

>>Do employers have the right to punish you for being Jewish?
No
>>Do employers have the right to punish you for not liking the Jewish?
No

So you would publicly hire someone who spent his weekends running around screaming "NIGGER" at the top of his lungs, and posted every one of his escapades on facebook? You would be willing to publicly associate your name and your company's name with such a person?

Really?

>>Do employers have the right to punish you for being Jewish?
No. That would be against the law.

>Do employers have the right to punish you for not liking the Jewish?
No*. They can't punish you for merely not liking Jews, they can punish you for going out and publicly ranting and raving about how the Jews are all subhumans and we should exterminate them.

Would you really be okay with keeping an employee who expresses sympathy for the jews?

This thread has little to do with technology.

None of this would be a problem is anonymity were rule of thumb for the internet still.
Social media and real names on the internet is an absolute cancer on humanity. It is psychological warfare that stifles free expression on the whole.

Unless they don't like blacks or jews. Then they have no choice.

>ITT: people actually believe privacy is a thing

Kek

Not really. I'd rather she simply be brought to light and let her crumble and self destruct under the weight of public scrutiny and hate. If she's posting publicly, it's not like she shouldn't have expected anyone to notice.

>Of course not, because you can't control that.

They could always convert to the one true faith

When you work for a company, you represent that company in your daily life. When you express opinions, you are representing the brand of that company. While you have every right to free speech, that speech can impact the company, and they have a right to protect their interests. I think there are times when being fired isn't justified, and an ideal society would let you always be able to become employed no matter what you say, but I do not think there should be absolute protection from being fired no matter what you say.

Right, when you work for a company you are their property.

She didn't work for a company. She was a (unionized) government employee.

>So you would publicly hire someone who spent his weekends running around screaming "NIGGER" at the top of his lungs, and posted every one of his escapades on facebook? You would be willing to publicly associate your name and your company's name with such a person?

Absolutely

If you're stupid enough to post inflammatory shit under your own damn name on SJW infested shit sites then you're probably a shit employee anyway and deserve to be shitcanned.

As long as doesn't show up dressed like the KKK and doesn't call anyone a nigger at work, sure.

This is normally where I would say NO, and that if I'm expected to leave my home life at home when I come to work and be a professional at my profession, then my home life should not get dragged to my work and pinned on me when it happens to defame my character.

HOWEVER

This is just the kind of thing I'm talking about when I have to remind people that social media is OPTIONAL, not mandatory. I haven't used any form of it for nearly 9 years now, and I'm doing perfectly fine. If anything, I'm getting more shit done without constantly thinking about and checking my social circle and what they're all doing and thinking of me.

that's not a great argument, by that logic they shouldn't post it anywhere on the internet but here

Yes, she was moron for saying this shit on social media in 2016. How retarded do you have to be? I mean, she's probably not retarded, she knew it would cost her.

There's always godlikeproductions

Shaun King is one of those guys that didn't really do anything wrong, but you still think he's a faggot and want to punch him. Like Bono.

If you are retarded enough to post that shit online, you deserve it. I kind of feel bad for those people, but they really brought it upon themselves.

Seriously though, how can anyone in this day and age think it's a good idea to do that kind of shit? You'll not only get fired, but every company will treat you the same way they treat ex-cons. You become a liability instead of an asset. SJWs will look you up and call your new employers to make sure he knows what a terrible person you are. This is the new reality. One dumb internet comment can ruin your entire life, so just keep your goddamn mouth shut or post anonymously.

You know you're an entitled millenial faggot when you go around telling large organizations what to do-

Oh yeah like pretending to be something you're not isn't inherently wrong, but it pisses people off.

No.

DUDE IT'S 2016

>Shaun King is one of those guys that didn't really do anything wrong

He spend all of his time spreading disinformation and inciting discord. He's a modern day warmonger.

To all the people saying YES:

Do you also believe the opposite? That people who do particularly positive or beneficial things should receive rewards or bonuses, for doing things like donating large sums to charity or taking your work home with you and doing extra off the clock?

If not, why not?

That "gorilla" was too much lilbit but in case of bitching mudslem - I see nothing wrong there.

Don't former presidents still get paid for several years after ending their presidency?

They're on the presidential pension for life.

I don't think so? I thought their main income comes from making public appearances afterward.

They get paid, for life. Same with senators.
Like $200,000 per year for so long as they're alive, in addition to getting their own private health care coverage paid for by the tax payers. 100% coverage no matter what.
Politics is a racket that people enter for financial gain.

Yes. If you're retarded enough to post this sort of shit under your real name you deserve every thing you get. Goes for the lefties too.

I've never seen anyone fired for posting anti-white racism and kuffarphobia. Just look at Bioware's racist pooinloo.

And?

But you should have to prove that what was commited was indeed a feasible "threat". That word gets used too much by shillers. Sometimes I think they'll even kill just to keep shilling.,

That's the popular belief. A lot of ex-presidents are actually on military payrolls and not on a congressional basis. Public speaking is just an easy way for them to make money.

Should it? No. Unless you are a politician or something, and the people barring you from employment are your constituents who don't want to vote for you anymore because you made an ass of yourself. But otherwise, nah, I don't think people really "deserve" to be fired just because they posted something dumb in their free time. But you're a damned idiot if you post anything publicly with your real name that could get you in trouble with your work.

Yes that's the very first fundamental value of the free world. The one exception is threatening violence.

There is a huge difference. You have to go out and actively seek out these posts. That alone means you have undertaken the responsibility of coping with whatever hurts the fieldings in your tight little echo chamber you fucking cunt.

Dude in the tie looks like he stumbled in on accident.

Dumb bitch got what she deserved

People are free to say what they want. Nobody prohibited her from saying those things.

That doesn't mean that other individuals (including your boss!) are not allowed to react to what you said. Free speech never meant that!

Only because we kept shitposting on Cred Forums until the POO IN LOO meme started to spread to the real world. We accomplished what the UN campaign could not.

People get fired because they post that they're bored at work on Facebook.
You should know that your public profile is not to be used for fucking around with.

No.

Could have been posted by anyone trying to blackmail/frame "Jane Wood Allen" using her name as an alias, or she might have simply had her accounts compromised.

Shame on Shaun King for recklessly abusing his twitter status.

Firing people for expressing a political opinion is not legal, is it?

If it was during work then she should be disciple but not fired.

If it was after work then it is A OK, because it's her free time so she isn't representing her company.

But we live in dark times right now where the libtards are in control and hate freedom and free speech, and no SJW and "pol" are not the same because SJW want to censor and destroy all forms of free speech while pol merely wants to call SJW out on their bullshit and mock them and only limit to SJW and other trash of society such as the dindus of the terrorist group BLM.

You can fire someone for any reason.

nice to know what 15 year olds think of all this

I don't believe it's illegal, no. Most people have the sense to keep their political opinions out of the workplace, since even when you don't go the extra mile by tackling racial issues in particular, you still run a high chance of offending people.

Fire someone for being LGBT, black, or arab, and see how that works out.

You don't have to give a reason for firing someone.

The job lynch mob is the modern day equivalent to stoning someone to death.

But give the reason and see how it works out.

Wrongful termination laws exist in a lot of states.

>you can fire someone for any reason
>as long as you don't tell them what that reason is
You can't fire someone for something like that. I mean, you can fire them and tell them it's for something else, but let's see you try firing someone specifically for being black. Like "You're terminated because you're black." Let's see how it goes.

Other forms of communication can also get you fired/have other consequences. The internet isn't and shouldn't be different.

>choosing to not associate with someone is the same as throwing rocks at someone until he dies

Firing someone for racial reasons is illegal pretty much everywhere in the US. Firing someone for political affiliation or views is not really. A few places have laws about it but most do not.

If you are dumb enough to openly state your employer or otherwise have that info in an easy to find place (like your employer listing you as employed)

if I work for microsoft, say that i work for microsoft, and then announce that hitler did nothing wrong while goose stepping, microsoft has a right to fire me

If I work for the SS and start preaching peace for the jews then hitler has the right to have me executed

but if i do all of that in a clever disguise it doesn't matter

Yes, the SJW should be fired.

this is world we live in now (maybe)
also
>getting fired
>not getting PROMOTIONS

by that logic, not just doing good® things would bring benefits but just saying it or posting online should work.

I love my qeer employer btw
capitalisms for everyone

I'm calling your employer right now user

I'm pretty sure this one depends on your country and what kind of job you have. In my country you can't just fire someone if they worked like 10 years for the same company.

>Firing someone for racial reasons is illegal pretty much everywhere in the US
Exactly the point.

Don't you have a safe space to go to?

I will bank that a 15 year old will know more than the average dindu that collects welfare and blames all their problems on superior Whites and chimps out whenever.

The job lynch mob isn't associated with their target. They just use the internet to ruin a person's life the only way they can, by trying to get them fired. It's a literal angry mob.

In the US it actually depends on the given state.
Some states, I as an employer, can fire anyone on the spot. No need to give a reason. Just bye, you're done. I'm no longer agreeing to purchase your labor.
Other states you have to give a PR department approved reason.
Its why "right to work" is such a big issue apart from union bullshit.

So people shouldn't be allowed to draw attention to already publicly available information?

Unless you're brown and muslim

Then your political views are special orders from god that are very important to you. White people don't understand browns and think they can't be anything but muslim, like muslim and brown skin are inseparable.

But whites understand that whites can be something other than stereotypes, so whites don't get a free pass

>white people
>racist even when they think they're being progressive

I thought in an academic setting you couldn't fire someone for political views. Or does that only apply to universities?

It's pretty much the same as living in a small village and screaming "MISS JONESMITH HAD A PREVIOUS HUSBAND, SHE BEETH DISLOYAL, DO NOT LET HER TEACH THINE CHILDREN"

creating unnatural consequences without the backing of law is vigilante justice, and it's considered undermining the rule of law in favor of collective anarchy. these mobs are essentially usurping the government and nullifying the social order it protects.

It's only vigilante justice if you yourself break the law to do it. Nothing wrong with making use of your own right to free speech to inform others of what other people are doing.

The first article of the Dutch constitution forbids both.

>All persons in the Netherlands shall be treated equally in equal circumstances. Discrimination on the grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race or sex or on any other grounds whatsoever shall not be permitted.

Why does the government have an obligation to protect social order?

This one sounds harsh. I hope you have laws for some compensation if they just fire you without a reason.

Generally no, but it depends on how the contents of your message may factor in to your job. I don't really care whether or not the person serving me hates niggers, faggots, kikes, or whatever the fuck, and expresses their opinions over the internet. All I care about is receiving what I paid for in a timely matter without being treated like shit.

The job lynch mob isn't trying to help the employer, they are trying to ruin the life of someone they disagree with, and attempting to get them fired is the best way they can.

Kek I love how laws like this backfire on PC fuckwits.
Your opinion is nice and all until it offends someone

And? Are you saying that shouldn't be allowed?

An employer is literally purchasing your labor.
With that in mind, why should someone be forced to purchase something they no longer want?

We do have a safety net of unemployment benefits though. The stipulation is only working at a place for so many months. Plus individual states have their own programs.

Moot is kind of cute

You may not care, but plenty of other people do. If they choose to take their money to other services because of an employee being bad PR, why should a company not be allowed to fire the employee?

That's literally why we created it

Government in the west was originally an extension of the will of god, and part of the church. The king was godly. His law was godly.

Now we can't agree on which god, if any, was right, or whos interpretation is the right one, if there is any, so the government acts on its own as the will of the people, who derive the morals from many sources and come upon agreement that manifests as government.

To enforce your own justice as a vocal minority is to go against the rule of the people and take advantage of good christians (still the majority) who are far too kind to punish you, or really do anything but hold you and those who bow to you in contempt for not exercising sufficient mercy.

Would you care if your employee hated whites, Christians, gun-owners, or Republicans?

I'm saying the practice is cancer. You can't say it's not allowed because it's the internet this activity is considered right and acceptable when it clearly isn't and a change of mindset needs to be made.

It's the same shit as muslim countries getting mad over women not wearing veils, and stoning people to death who say women should have rights.

If not liking people constantly scream GTKRWN is a vocal minority, then the people who do so really should face no threat of losing their jobs for those posts, right?

>tfw none of the uniquely christian values that matter are US law
>tfw americans would rather outlaw sodomy and then make it legal again

It happens. Some companies take a zero risk approach because they don't want to have the slightest dip in sales, others go full protein world and mock the mobs.

Then it wouldn't be that much trouble for the person fired to find a company like the latter right?

Throwing stones at someone until they die is not the same as deciding to not continue paying for someone's labor because they are creating bad PR.

That's what you get for being a retard and writing that under your name.

Except it is because social stratification and poor economic mobility is a thing

>they are trying to ruin the life of someone they disagree with
This.

These people don't fucking care what happened to their enemies before or after the thing they disagreed with, all they see is someone doing something they think is "bad" in any position of authority, they piss all over public media demanding that the person lose their job, and then the person is magically poofed away, no longer in their position of authority, and never to be heard from again! Out of sight, out of mind.

But the part you don't see on Yahoo News is the person having to clear out their office, go home and tell their partner (or landlord) that they lost their job and are barred from their career, can't get work anywhere anymore, rendering their degrees and 7+ year education null and void, won't be able to support themselves since now they'd be lucky if they could get a secretarial position, apply for E.I. may have to move back in with their parents, and generally have to start their whole fucking life over again, often at the age of 30-50.

Just because they typed something online that hurt someone's feelings.

Why should trying to ruin the life of someone you disagree with not be allowed?

I like it.

There's no "be allowed" about it; what he's saying is that what the job lynch mob does is immoral.

Really? And it's not because most of society doesn't like Nazis?

No one's saying it shouldn't you stupid cunt. It's just disgraceful behaviour and the people who do it are subhuman cunts.

Morality is meaningless. Different people have different morals. People will do whatever they want. The only thing meaningful to discuss is the law from a policy perspective.

Where are the mods????

not if it didnt have any impact on their work desu i judge employees based on their ability to do their job not how well they can engage in a political circlejerk with me

>shouldn't be allowed shouldn't be allowed
the thread opens with a normative question of whether something "ought" to happen, i.e. ethically

that is a separate question from whether the practice should be legal. don't imply that people who think something is wrong are trying to ban it

>Morality is meaningless.
Great.

Social media and its ramifications on society IS technology.

And part of the job is not causing bad press for your employer.

>Different people have different morals.
which is why the OP solicits the moral opinion of a bunch of different people, dumbass

don't play stupid, you and i both know that normative questions can be entertained in a coherent manner, and policymakers know it too

You can talk about what people "ought" to do all you want, that's not going to stop them from doing it.

What's the context behind this?

Racists can eat shit. This woman will get no sympathy from me.

>Why should trying to ruin the life of someone not be allowed?
Ruining people's lives is usually considered bad form. Ruining people's lives in some ways (stabbing/mugging) is illegal. Ruining people's lives in some other ways (I want Joe's job... "Boss, I heard Joe has been seeing your wife.") is not illegal, but it is still bad form.

Obviously regressives jump straight from "I find this sort of thing immoral" to "this speech should be banned and whoever says it should be magicked away". There's nothing in-between with these people. There are no wrong actions, only wrong victims.

>arguments can't cause people to do or not do things
that's objectively wrong

And refusing to talk about something isn't going to get anyone to change their mind.

well yeah, it's incredible how many liberals think that when racists are banned from a web site they disappear from the internet

So where's racism for you in the sin scale? Worse than assault? Worse than robbing? Worse than causing severe injury? Worse than rape? Worse than murder?

if you where posting that under an alias it would be the literally same thing but without the consequences

>don't imply that people who think something is wrong are trying to ban it
ironically, that's seems to be the case

If it's bad form why is America fine with illegal spics stealing jobs from them?

The only thing that matters is history, facts, and statistics and those three have shown time and time again that niggers, spics, sandniggers, kikes, libtards, feminist, sjws, oldfags, the lazy, and the poor bring nothing but destruction to any society.

Indeed, but I can almost guarantee that she was in an agreement (either explicitly acknowledged by her signature or implicitly bargained via union) governing her conduct as a public employee.

In some cases, you are. You sign agreements when you start working somewhere in an official capacity staying what they reserve the right to terminate your job for, and I guarantee talking sweet with your real Facebook account was strictly disallowed.

I peesonally would never do it, but I respect an employer's right to hire and fire for whatever reason they like. Hell, not even race, religion, etc. should be off limits. Many would get stiffed, but if their bent would have kept you from getting the job in the first place, they sure as hell will make you miserable working there.

>With that in mind, why should someone be forced to purchase something they no longer want?

Well, if there is a law for compensation if you fire someone without a good reason, it would benefit the employee in some kind of job security. The state would of course gain something as well because of the unpaid unemployment benefits.

Basically the employer wouldn't be forced but discouraged from firing people. I know you have somewhat of a free market over there. In my country it's a social market economy. So it's understandable that the state regulates more in my country.

Yeah

Considering my uncle is literally an aryan nations fag that tweets breitbart and daily stormer under his real name and works for boeing (and did all that before working at boeing), I don't think companies care if you're voting for trump or not. They definitely know, but they don't care.

They do care if a vocal minority makes it into a spectacle, but those blow over because it's never a real spectacle. It's a THREAT of a spectacle that's only briefly known to a small crowd of idiots on tumblr and twitter. So you do get a job again, and your prospects have to do with much grander machinations than the whining of effeminate babies on the internet.

that is true

If that's the case then it should be no big deal.

niggers

I've got to give you props for being such a good sport. Its not often that such reasonable conversations happen here.
We live in two different countries, have different perspectives, and managed to be respectful to one another.

The US varies between the states more than foreigners realize. For example Wisconsin and New York have entirely different laws and safety nets in place for both the employee and the employer. We kind of have a "see what works" approach to things, at least in theory. Corporations have far too big a say in how things actually end up with their ability to hire lobbyists, but at least in theory thats how things are supposed to work. So its not like things are completely cold and heartless here. An employer isn't necessarily stuck with a deadbeat employee, and no employee is necessarily shafted by an unscrupulous employer.
It does happen that good people are laid off just to save money. There are plenty of documented cases of pregnant women being fired, men injured on the job being fired, things like that. Almost all of the time they have state based programs to help them out.
We're not a society that tries to guarantee a lot of things, but we do try to provide. Keyword is try. Is ideas are tried and don't work, we're supposed to try new ones, or try what works in a neighboring state. Thats the theory anyway.

Anyone who makes SJWs butthurt deserves a promotion.

It's as big of a deal as it would be if you quit your job voluntarily with 2 weeks notice. Your potential to net an equal or better occupation will still be as shit as socioeconomic factors and snobbish HR filters (must have digeridoo from prestigious uni, must be over 6'0", must be able to do sick burnouts) decide.

I wonder when Cred Forums became Cred Forums

You know how Cred Forums suffers from a really bad Cred Forums leak? Well every board that's not Cred Forums suffers from a really bad Cred Forums leak.

Funny, racists think the same about you.

HAHAHAHAHHA edgy poltards getting BTFO everywhere

When we got a black president and instead of racial harmony we got race baiting, riots, and increasingly virulent anti-white discrimination going mainstream. Not that it was his doing alone but the whole last decade has been a slow boil and a lot of formerly normalfags without a political opinion have become fed up with the left and it's shit. Most of us aren't impressed with le internet nazis either but if it's a choice of suicide or being grouped in with racists we'll take the racists thanks.

>tfw you agree with half the image and despise the other half

Spotted the juden

It was his doing, following the rightful shooting of Trayvon.

Everybody working for the weekend, everybody wanna have a good time

My halfrican friend got fired for saying nigger on Facebook. Management there was all white to lol. My employer doesn't give a fuck what i say as long as it's not about them or under NDA. I think that is the approach everyone should take.

No, not at all. You should be free to express yourself as long as you don't call to action. "I hate niggers" doesn't mean "I order people to kill every black person".

Sure. That's part of personal responsibility. If you don't want that, don't express extremist views under your real name. There are enough other anonymous communication channels - we are using one right now.
I wouldn't hire outspoken turbo feminist tumblrinas, islamists or furfags either.

Don't post where you work online.

It's that simple.

Why are women buried more than men? To hit them better?

The husband wont like seeing his wife have bruises on the breasts/abdomen. Also so the reproductive organs aren't damaged during punishment, so as to not make the woman barren after punishment is administered.

I thought they die in the stoning? Do mudslimes keep fucking their dead wifes or what?

No one should be fired at the request of anyone, but if she ends up canned because of her bullshit then oh well

It's so that they die quicker. Also, there's a higher chance to turn unconscious when your buried deeper because the chance of hitting the head is higher.

This is bullshit. Stoning is designed to kill those punished.

So you're telling me businesses can legally target anyone who gets involved with Social Justice, armchair activism or any of the left's witch hunts and single them out to be fired? That they can decide having shrill obnoxious moral authoritarians making their workplace hostile because they're desperate to sniff out offense and have a power trip is very bad for business and start making it policy to get rid of anyone who has vaguely left politics?

I would fucking love to see the shoe on the other foot. Watch all the effeminate faggots in media shriek about oppression when they start getting a taste of their own medicine.

>aw fuck how did I get myself into this?
>well, I'm already in line and it's weirder to leave at this point.

...

>if someone criticizes the far left when they act retarded then they must be a far right Cred Forumsfag

Alpha AF. Cucks don't apply.

Wow, so humane of them.

And they say Islam is not the religion of peace. Show me anywhere in the new testament where women are to be treated gentler when being executed by a mob.

Protip: you can't.

>shitposting under your real name that's linked to your workplace

yes, she deserves it. We don't want people this retarded in education.

No wonder they were the pinnacle of civilization 1200 years ago. Were Christcucks even trying?

>new testament
>executed by a mob

>she isn't representing her company
>"works at Chestatee Elementary" is right there on her twitter/facebook

It is her private time so she can do whatever she wants.

that's irrelevant, she is still representing her company

Sure, they could if they wanted to. Hell, it's not exactly unprecedented. Didn't that dongle chick get fired for her actions?

It's just not all that common since businesses don't want to do things that will draw unwanted attention to themselves, and usually will only fire you for your beliefs if they are of the sort likely to draw this sort of attention at all.

unless you flip burgers at a fast food chain, you are representing your company at all times, especially client-facing positions like sales or service.

it reflects negatively on the company if their employees are diddling children or going on racist tyrades.

Yes, if you're fucking stupid enough to make your posts public.