"Surely the principle of [asking someone to step down for supporting & funding racist rhetoric] is not that controversial."
-
-
-
If supporting Trump = supporting racist rhetoric, firing people who support racist rhetoric would mean firing 40% of workers.
-
The bulk of workers who support a somewhat harmful view (with no harmful actions effecting the worksite) shouldn't be fired.
-
Leader who imparts vision, whose DNA gets replicated into the future=different. I'd ask for a statement disavowing racist rhetoric.
-
So companies should only fire managers who plan to vote for Trump?
-
No. But it's an HR issue if owner/partner/exec acts on, gives *appearance* of supporting racist rhetoric (attends rally, donates $$).
-
So managers get fired only if they *openly* support Trump?
-
No. Dialogue/discovery. Same as if one discovered a partner attended a David Duke rally or donated money to an anti-Semitic charity.
- 11 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
When you remove the emotionally-charged, inaccurate terms "purging" & "wrong political party," the issue remains both valid/complex.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Depends on whether the party respects the underlying norms of civil democracy that make parties work in the first place
-
If the party's purpose is the destruction of civil society itself then people have to choose; party or the republic
-
I wouldn't say this is controversial so much as misunderstood by people who have a limited grasp of civics
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.