It is the same thing if you have to be politically connected in order to exercise the right. Even if you want to strip the right from everyone, you're removing a right.

What you do in the workplace and what you do in war are very different things. You may wish to consult your employee handbook if you don't know this.

"Anyway I shall bring whatever I choose to the office. Turns out if enough people bring it, then it matters, because a company needs employees."

I doubt you'd be as in favor if this if you were on the losing side of it.

"The workers at Mozilla did the upstanding thing, they informed their employer they would quit and gave them the option to choose"

No they didn't. They refused to work but still wanted to be paid. Had they quit, that I might have respected. They stuck around and interfered with the activities of those that chose to continue doing the work they were being paid for.

"Oh yeah I do know it's because Eich free speeched on something you agree with and then got massive blowback because people free speeched right back at him."

I don't want any activism in the workplace regardless of who is doing it. I'm not antireligion, but I don't like religion in the workplace, even if it's just passing out pamphlets or seeking donations. I'm pro-gun rights, but I don't want to hear about that at work either. I want to do the job and go home and not run into any non-work related strife along the way. There's enough stress on the job, we don't need to add more.

Mozilla is going down over this BS. You're still fanning the flames.

"You can't have freedom of expression without people having the freedom to say you're a dickwad."

On the job? That's not where your freedom of expression should be practiced. Do that on your own time.

"I don't even agree he should have been fired over it but he should have had to answer for it and the idea he would be fired over it to me is nowhere near out of bounds"

Except that a firing would have been out of bounds. CA protects employees against discrimination based on political affiliation and activities. By denying people the ability to participate in the political process, are you not in favor of stripping rights from workers yourself?

In Amazon's case, I'm having a hard time believing they'll replace people they can treat as slaves with machines that don't care how much you abuse them. I mean, really, how superior can you feel to a machine?

I don't assume that the draft age will not be expanded. Assumptions which once seemed safe now appear quaint.

It's going to keep getting hit as long as the orange shitgibbon is in office, and there will surely be knock-on effects, so a ten year scale is not wholly satisfying either.

I haven't, I'm not American and it's not the same thing unless you're talking about revoking the second amendment for a specific minority because of your religion.

No one was fired over that whole slavery thing? You what? There was a whole civil war about it, or did you miss that somehow?

Anyway I shall bring whatever I choose to the office. Turns out if enough people bring it, then it matters, because a company needs employees. The workers at Mozilla did the upstanding thing, they informed their employer they would quit and gave them the option to choose. I don't really see why you object to that. Oh yeah I do know it's because Eich free speeched on something you agree with and then got massive blowback because people free speeched right back at him.

You can't have freedom of expression without people having the freedom to say you're a dickwad.

You'd think so, but maybe they're just not very good at it.

Those under 25 might find themselves with a new job as a military conscript late next year.

And if so, it may well turn out to be the best thing that's ever happened to them, although they probably won't believe it at the time. Not only will they get food, shelter and a paycheck out of it, they'll come away with some new and marketable skills as well. And, once they're out, they'll have access to subsidized schooling to put a polish on those skills and low cost world-class medical care for the rest of their lives.

We never saw him get shot.

His doctor claimed he had a hole in his ear the size of a fucking penny, which is so much bullshit on every level that you have to be among the dumbest motherfuckers on the planet to believe it.

Medicaid fraud is quite rare, and if someone commits deliberate fraud the welfare cops can and will come after them for it. People who don't have money are eligible to Medicaid, so recovery is very possible. Remember, it's not fraud unless someone gets benefits because they lie.

"He donated money to strip rights from one group of people."

Have you ever donated to a group that's against the second amendment? Based on your comments, you probably have. That's the same thing. The Constitution says we have the inalienable right to bear arms, yet in states like CA, those rights have been stripped from one group of people. Law enforcement still has the right, but individuals? Not so much. I know in NYC, if you're "connected" enough to politicians, you can have the right. But not so for others. So if you support the democrats, should you be ineligible to be an executive or any highly paid individual working for an org like Mozilla?

That's basically what politics is, deciding who can do what through legislation. Rights are codified by law. Any discussion of potential legislation will likely include the granting or taking away of some form of a right.

"It was once mainstream opinion that black people weren't actually people and so it was OK to keep them as slaves. That did not make that less harmful."

No, but no one was fired for it (or forced out) either. If you want to change the laws, get involved in politics. Run for office. Support like-minded candidates. Attend rallies. Do whatever you like in support of the change you want, but don't bring it into the office and use your role at the company as a weapon. That's what many of the employees at Mozilla chose to do to Eich. Like you said, you could even choose to leave if you learned about his donation from the data breach. I don't have an issue with that, other than thinking it petty. But refusing to do the job you're paid to do until an executive is ousted over something they didn't do on the job and was perfectly legal and supported by over half the population? That's way out of line.

"I am no slave, all my time is mine."

If you don't wish to work for your employer, quit. That's the honest, upstanding move. Refusing to work but still expecting a paycheck is some really weak energy. You're a tech worker when you're on the clock, not a political activist. Mozilla lost sight of that, and now see where they are as an org. They're now unpopular and untrusted. The majority trust and rely on Google more than the hacktivists at Mozilla.

He didn't say anything or do anything at Mozilla that would have negatively impacted those workers. As a private individual, he donated a mere $500 to a political cause that he supported. That was it. It was information that no one at Mozilla should have even known about, it was learned about as the result of a data breach.

Imagine the reverse where executives of a company where examining data breaches for info that showed that their employees were doing things in their off time that they didn't approve of and used that to terminate their employment. I bet you wouldn't like that. So why is it okay in the other direction? Just because they make more money? Everyone in tech makes more money than most of the population. Are you sure that's a slope you want to slide down?

Saying freedom is not freedom from consequences is unfalsifiable gibberish that doesn't mean anything.

It means: he's free to be a dick and his employees are free to say they're going to quit. Which is exactly what happened. Don't like it? Maybe you should use your free speech to advocate removing the first amendment.

I don't see his job title as being relevant. He was CEO of Mozilla, so what? Anyone can start a company and be a CEO. That doesn't mean their personal lives should be under any sort of public scrutiny. I don't even like it when people do that to politicians, and they're elected into public offices. You shouldn't have to surrender your right to have a life just because you're an executive or just because you make a higher income much or most of the rest of the population. Your work should be judged on the merit of your work, not your personal life. That's my point.

Reels are bad because the interface is bad. It's worse than normal posts.

I'm guessing they won't fix that, so now all videos will have a bad interface.