Sorry about the image, but this is too important to rewrite to fit in 140 characters:pic.twitter.com/hxDiilriwE
-
"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.
![Paul Pajo 🧢 [Jan/3➞₿ 🔑∎] #Insulin4All {#HODL}](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1363049185117806594/tnadUgYg_normal.jpg)
-
-
Sorry, point wasn't "should be fired." Rather, firing/disconnecting aren't the only option. There's also "asking to resign."
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
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.
- Show replies
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.