zlacker

>>Tanger+(OP)
So here's a nuanced view I'm sure will get downvoted into the ground: both FB and the employee were right, but along different dimensions, and this outcome was not only inevitable, but desirable.

The employee, as a white male in tech, is absolutely morally right to use his privilege to call out other powerful white males for their silence.

And make no mistake, silence is complicity. Many smart philosophers have written about this, see MLK Jr. or Maya Angelou for more.

This is the core of being an ally. Use your privilege to make the hard ask from your peers that a less privileged person, who is decidedly not a peer, cannot.

FB, on the other hand, is also right in a different sense, to maintain internal expectations that singling out colleagues with your political opinion in public is ineffective at best and toxic harassment at worst. FB are signalling to the rest of their employees what behavior they will not tolerate.

In the end, this employee leveraged awareness several orders of magnitude more than had he not been fired (and will likely easily find a new job) and FB protected whatever they believe their culture to be (and whatever other HR lawsuits they believed themselves to be at risk for).

>>achian+Qq
Silence is complicency, for racial hate crimes and actions, yes, i agree, you should t stand by and let bad shit happen.

This isn't silence though, this is rejecting an order to partake in a protest.

Even if it is silence, staying silent is still a right.

Harrassing people for silence is akin to harassing people exercising their freedom of speech.