zlacker

>>Tanger+(OP)
I think a key phrase here is "he was dismissed for publicly challenging a colleague’s silence".

In other words, he publicly harassed a colleague who (for what could be any number of perfectly valid reasons) preferred not to publicly state their beliefs. That would seem to me to be an eminently reasonable reason to fire someone. If you go around publicly harassing your colleagues to publicly state their political opinions, you deserve to be fired.

>>nsains+P8
Indeed -- here is some additional context that the article doesn't provide:

The fired employee Tweeted today:

>In the interest of transparency, I was let go for calling out an employee’s inaction here on Twitter. I stand by what I said. They didn’t give me the chance to quit [0]

He then specifically cited [1] the Tweet in question that was the cause:

>I asked @Vjeux to follow @reactjs's lead and add a statement of support to Recoil's docs and he privately refused, claiming open source shouldn't be political.

>Intentionally not making a statement is already political. Consider that next time you think of Recoil. [2]

This is specifically targeting an individual front-end engineer at FB, which in my own estimation crosses the line from criticism of executives or general policy, to specifically trying to instigate public outrage against a co-worker. If such actions were directed at me, I would definitely consider it as contributing to a hostile work environment. It all strikes me as a modern-day example of "Havel's greengrocer" [3].

[0] https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1271522288752455680

[1] https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1271531477209976832

[2] https://twitter.com/aweary/status/1267895488205869057

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Power_of_the_Powerless#Hav...

>>mgleit+7a
He decides because he believes something strongly it permits him to publicly attack someone he works with... Imagine having to deal with this guy in a team when he has a strong opinion on something the team disagrees with ...

>>rubber+2c
Agree. It's endemic of the political and cultural climate we're in right now, where mob rule is becoming the status quo. Personal politics should be just that, personal.

>>holler+nc
Politics by definition cannot be personal. It's the practice of resolving conflict within society; if you don't interact with society, there is no politics possible.

(Note: this doesn't mean I agree with the behaviour shown in this case - nobody says politics between colleagues must be done over Twitter.)

(edit: sad downvotes without actual logical counterpoint are sad.)

>>toyg+3e
Politics at the workplace should be kept personal. Politics between colleagues should not be done at all.

>>DenisM+tk
I disagree. With that outlook, we would never have had the social movements that changed Europe for the better in the XIX and XX century. In modern terms, stuff like BLM influences who your colleagues are, how you treat them, and how you react to their demands for fairness.

>>toyg+E81
The world would be a better place if both Russia and Germany kept a lid on the practice of pressuring people into a political stance in the first half of the 20th century.

OTOH MLK did not have his followers pressure coworkers - they kept it in the public, not behind doors.

>>DenisM+Vx1
That's not how it went down - what happened between 1900-1950 was the culmination of more than a century of struggles in industrial relations (where labor had no power unless it organised), the rise of mass-media, and the end of monarchies as a viable system of government.