(07-18-2019 05:16 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  The idea of firing for criminal activity and incompetence is fairly objective, the latter a little less so.

The funny thing is that 93 just validated the entire ethos of progressivism with his comment there. Perfectly fine with firing for a 'racial slur'.

Funny how a 'racial slur' is a constantly moving target. In fact, it is utterly and completely subjective, to be honest. Not just by individual variance, but by temporal variance. One that was, surprise, surprise, visited by the Supreme Court last year.

The prime example of how leftists wanted to ixnay the trademark Redskins for years; and when it came down to it, the Supreme Court didnt do the 'rule de jour' method that is lapped up like fresh mead by the leftists, they expressly ruled that the ability of the Trademark Office to deny "disparaging" marks was so amazingly vague that they told the Trademark Office to stop. But the core in their is that the progressives fought tooth and nail to impose a 'rule de jour' on that practice.

93 seems perfectly at home at creating a society ruled by 'rule de jour' in the workplace. Rule by vagueness. Yay. A progressive's wet dream.

And somehow they are either blind to that 'vagueness doctrine', or simply dont give a flip.

If bad -- -mob rule prevails. Get the state involved. Get the workplace involved. With a rulebase that can change with the vagaries of what is deigned to be double ungood speak (at that time, at that place). I mean, who the fk should care abut any form of objectivism if the goal is stamping out bad thought.

It almost *always* boils down to a rule de jour over a rule of law system for them. 93 gave us a great case in point of that just there. <clap>

Thank you for that telling insight.

But the entire concept of 'rule de jour'

So you’re against an employer being able to fire an employee over the use of a racial slur?