You're not surprised because you're incapable of basic reading comprehension. If you were capable of basic reading comprehension, you'd realise that this deal involves both tax breaks and cash subsidies. You'd also know that tax subsidy is not a hyphenated word, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, eh?
Literally the first picture of the linked article is of Trump next to Walker pretending to use a shovel to break ground on the plant. (Props to him: it was more convincing than his pretense at using an umbrella)
So preemuch the exact same article he wrote on this topic a little while back, offering the same level of analysis and same lack of insight into what either design or experience consists of. But now with added blitheness about privacy too!
Go back and re-read my comment, and you'll see I didn't mention Americans. That's your projection right there, oh muppety one.
And I don't need to start my own Slashdot, because it's on this special thing called the World Wide Web which enables us to learn about things from all around the world including the US, the UK and lots of other countries too, oh muppettier one.
And why don't you engage with the actual substance of my critique, instead of just replying with a dumbfuck ad hominem? You could, for example, have quoted a dozen links to me that showed that many Slashdotters were in fact well aware of Ocado; or that Uber's approach already took account of global trends in online delivery; or even that you yourself had known about Ocado for ages. But no, you just whined that I pointed out a shortcoming in the analysis of several of the posts on this story. And you moaned about what you saw as my moaning, which would have been ironic of you if done intentionally, but was instead just even more stupid, oh muppietest of all.
It is hilarious how parochial most Slashdot posters are.
Online grocery shopping has been a major business in the UK, the world's most competitive grocery market (competitive, not lucrative or largest), for more than a decade.
Perhaps Uber would like to study up about Ocado (and Sainsburys.com and Tesco.com and Waitrose.com etc etc) before they jump into this market. Perhaps Slashdotters might want to learn a little bit about them as well, before confidently declaring that online grocery shopping can never be a thing.
Ocado's story, in particular, has many lessons to teach about platform vs exclusivity, the role of automation, the importance of new brands for online (eg Natoora), the cognitive differences in shopping decisions online vs in-store (smart lists etc).
Go look again at the post I replied to. That post did not make an argument that nothing happened. It argued that if something happened a sufficiently long time ago, it wasn't relevant any more.
Go look again at the post I replied to. That post did not make an argument that nothing happened. It argued that if something happened a sufficiently long time ago, it wasn't relevant any more.
And obviously -- *obviously* -- not everyone agrees with you that the allegations against the current nominee are not credible.
Sigh. You wrote: "Then your statements about the only way we could possibly have freedom of speech involves legally forcing businesses to hire people and forcing platforms to push a message are more than a little disingenuous"
I had written: "The consequence of your stance includes requiring the government to force companies to employ unrepentant Nazi supporters, to force book publishers to publish books that will damage the sales of their other books, to force business partners to work with people they don't want to work with any more, etc. Mad."
I didn't say that I thought your stance was "the only we we could possibly have freedom of speech". I think we can have freedom of speech without requiring the government to do all those things. But I think your stance as stated implied that employers should not be able to fire unrepentant Nazi supporters. You later said that this was not the case, and you did in fact think that employers should be able to fire unrepentant Nazi supporters, under certain circumstances.
This all feels like the most bizarre discussion.
The next bit, on goal post moving: Firing someone for a Nazi rant is an example of firing someone for what they said! It is that thing I described in my first post. My first post didn't imply that I thought employers should be able to fire someone for *anything* that they said. If you read "what they said" as "anything", then you're over-interpreting. Again.
On hippies: I don't know why you think I'd think anything different to you. Obviously, this would be bad. Obviously, morals go beyond the law. Things can be legal yet immoral.
On republicans: you originally wrote: "No, even though there's a lot of ideological overlap with the NAZI party right now, my place of employment does not fire the people for being republican." I was confused because you were answering a question I hadn't asked. I didn't ask: "does your company to fire republicans even though there's a lot of ideological overlap with the NAZI party?" I asked: "If a colleague of yours expressed the political views associated with Nazism, would you think your employer ought not to fire them?" I then clarified that I did not mean those aspects of NAZI ideology that related to authoritarianism (ie the putative ideological overlap with republicans), and that I meant the aspects of NAZI ideology that relate to genocide. In other words, I kept on trying to ask you a question about whether you were saying that someone should never be fired for expressing political views even if they were views that were completely and utterly vile, and you kept on saying someone shouldn't be fired for expressing political views that are not vile. And then you got insulted.
The outside of business thing could be interesting, but honestly it just doesn't seem worth the effort to engage with you on this because you keep on misreading my answers. In a world where we had a positive discussion, I'd be interested to know if you thought that a highly publicised political and vile statement where they were obviously linked to a company (for example, an employee expressing their support for exterminating all Jews in America on national television while wearing a Boeing badge that clearly showed they were a Boeing employee) could be justly fired by their employer. But I don't want go down yet another rabbit warren with you.
Anyway, I'm going to go and enjoy some Swiss sunshine now. More fun than this particular discussion
YAY! Then your statements about the only way we could possibly have freedom of speech involves legally forcing businesses to hire people and forcing platforms to push a message are more than a little disingenuous as this is apparently obvious and self-evident. You should really go back and redact those statements you've made since you're backtracking there. Good talk.
What statements of those would those be, then? I'm checked the thread and nope, I never once suggested businesses should be legally forced to hire people. Can you provide a quote where you think this is what I'm saying, please.
Well you really kinda glossed over all those and had a blanket statement of "it's OK to fire someone for what they said"
I beg your fucking pardon. I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that if you are so stupid as to say something against the policy of your employer, you put your job at risk. It's you that thought this meant that I thought that employers ought to have freedom to fire people on a whim just because they don't like their politics. But you massively over-read what I wrote.
And it's also self-evident right from the outset that I agree that there are a "whole spectrum of what "consequences" entail", because I bloody listed out a few of them in my OP! Divorce, being fired, etc etc. And as you point out, and again self-evidently, divorce is merely an extreme consequence where the other end is that your spouse is angry at you, and being fired is an extreme end and less extreme is being given a written warning, etc etc.
And note that ALL of them are are slid over to "Yes this should be a consequence of saying something unpopular".
"Unpopular"? That's *your* word, not mine. I didn't say anything at all about which speech ought to lead to these consequence. *Self-evidently*, this is a contested area. I don't know why you persist in ascribing to me a lack of nuance that is not implied by my first post. I keep on telling you it's an over-reach and you keep on ignoring what I'm saying. Obviously someone shouldn't be fired just for saying something merely *unpopular*. That's a ridiculously low bar.
To spell it out: my first post was intended to point out that there ought not to be an artificial constraint that says "an employer may not fire an employee on the basis of that employee's speech, no matter what that employee says, even if it's damaging to their business interests and they've gone through a careful process etc etc".
Republicans can exist without getting fired. If that's not what you meant then you should probably restate it. I don't particularly like their world-views, but I can tolerate them. Can you tolerate and live with and work alongside republicans? If not, you're a bigot.
I never mentioned Republicans, although you did. The OP wasn't about republicans. I don't know why you thought I would think someone should be fired for being Republican. I literally have no clue why you think I'd think such a thing. It's totally bizarre, and obviously not something I would think, because I'm not a complete idiot.
I also don't understand how you can both think: 1. that the concept "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is "nonsense" 2. that it's OK to fire someone for what they said. [don't shovel shit into my mouth, you're ripping out all the context and nuance and surrounds conditionals I stated. It's not OK to fire people for expressing political beliefs outside of work.] But this is totally mad. I know those conditionals are important to you. They're important to me too. But the point is that, still, after all those conditionals have taken effect, and after a careful process has been gone through, someone can, in your view, be rightly fired for what they said. An employer should not be banned from doing this, in your view and in mine.
I don't buy the distinction you make between political
I'm not *running away* from your questions. It's just that it's self-evident right from the outset that I agree 100% that free speech is a super-set of the 1st amendment and a larger issue. There are obvious moral questions to be asked about, to continue with the example, when an employer is acting morally correctly in firing an employee for something they say, and when they are not. And it's also self-evident right from the outset that I agree that there are a "whole spectrum of what "consequences" entail", because I bloody listed out a few of them in my OP! Divorce, being fired, etc etc. And as you point out, and again self-evidently, divorce is merely an extreme consequence where the other end is that your spouse is angry at you, and being fired is an extreme end and less extreme is being given a written warning, etc etc.
I genuinely don't see what you think is a material difference between the position you hold and the position I hold. We both agree on the points above. We both agree that there are circumstances in which it's legitimate for an employer to fire an employee for something they said, but that's a big gun that ought to be used sparingly. So, tell me, what do you think you disagree with me about?
I also don't understand how you can both think: 1. that the concept "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is "nonsense" 2. that it's OK to fire someone for what they said. Isn't firing someone for something they said a direct illustration of the first point?
Why can't you read properly? My original post was not merely about the First Amendment. I *explicitly cited* a whole string of non-governmental responses to someone's speech in it, *including an employer firing someone*. I mean, that was the whole fucking point behind my #2 point in my original post. So, surprise surprise, I was already engaging with the notion of free speech and private actors from the very outset.
Why would you *assume* that in my thought experiments, assholes are always male? You're wrong. It's you with the unwarranted assumptions, not me.
The rest of your comment is just hilarious. Let's just be clear. In my OP, which inspired this whole string of nonsense, I said: "The 1st amendment... doesn't promise you that you can say any shit you like without fear of being fired by your employer" You took grave, *grave* offense to this. Among your other choice phrases in subsequent posts was this doozy: "No, I don't think so they should be fired just just saying that... if a mere IDEA is enough to shatter your society, that fucker was WAY too fragile and it was fucked from the get go. ie, you can't just go out and murder/blacklist/exile everyone you don't like. The NAZIs tried that and it didn't work. Stop trying to follow the NAZI playbook." [emphasis added] And now, here you are saying: "Yeah, I'd agree that free speech is not absolute, and there's plenty of places I don't want to have to put up with rants. If anyone complains at work, it shuts that shit down. From anyone."
So what the *fuck* was the point of all of that, then? Your ending position is no different to my starting position.
This entire thread of nonsense has been driven by the assumptions you've made about who I am, the position I espouse, and how yours is so different from mine. Those assumptions have blocked you from properly paying attention to what I've been saying. All of which is all the funnier given that part of what you've tried to school me about is the danger of making assumptions.
It's time to wind your neck in. Go back and re-read what I first wrote. You'll find it's not obnoxious, nor drawn from the Nazi playbook (or NAZI, as you insist on writing it). It's as American as apple pie, just like the principle that you can proclaim your ideas freely, but nobody is obliged to buy you a soapbox on which to stand.
1. I'm not fucking with you. I was asking because the sense of your previous sentence was unclear to me. I didn't personally express a view in my post that this would be a good thing to do, and to be explicit, I don't think it would be. You need to calm down a bit. 2. How can I "assume" a theoretical person is a guy, when the theoretical person is in my mind? It's my thought experiment, and I'm perfectly entitled to ascribe a male identity to them. If *you* had posited the existence of a co-worker with Nazi views, and oh-so-carefully used "they" as a pronoun, and I had replied by using "he", *then* I would be making an assumption about who you had in mind. But I didn't, so the point is moot. Anyway, I don't know why you're interested in having this bizarre meta-argument over trivial stuff like the use of a personal pronoun. 3. I specifically said "a colleague...were to have a conversation with co-workers". And despite saying no, you wouldn't fire them, you suggest they should have a trip to HR to be told to shut up (and presumably face consequences if they refuse, citing free speech). So you don't seem all *that* hot on free speech in the workplace. You seem to think it's acceptable to say to someone "you can have views I don't like as a co-worker of mine, so long as you don't express them out loud at work".
Let's try another tack: do you think a prospective employer should refuse to hire an otherwise good candidate because they have a swastika tattooed on their forehead. Do you say yes, accepting that there are in fact legitimate reasons for employers to blacklist someone because of the ideas they hold and express? Or do you say no, and insist that employers must employ people who choose to express vile views, even if that will damage the interests of that business (eg damage to brand equity)?
I'm not sure whether you're saying "I think my employer ought not to fire this person" or "I think my employer ought to fire this person".
In any event, the political views I had in mind were not so much about the authoritarianism as the championing of genocide. Are you saying that if a colleague of yours were to have a conversation with co-workers in which he said, pace Lagarde, "Jews are bacillus, the carriers of decay... who pollute every national culture... and destroy all faiths with their materialistic liberalism" and that they should be exterminated, that this -- in and of itself -- would not be a reason for his employer to fire him?
Slashdot Mirror
I'm aware. But he made a claim about deaths, not death rates.
OK, now I see what you're referring to.
The bit where you expect me to feel sorry for poor likkle Exxon... that's hilarious and stupid all at the same time. But whatevs.
perhaps you'd care to quote the words that led you to the conclusion of a bait-and-switch re carbon, because I don't see it featuring anywhere.
You're not surprised because you're incapable of basic reading comprehension. If you were capable of basic reading comprehension, you'd realise that this deal involves both tax breaks and cash subsidies. You'd also know that tax subsidy is not a hyphenated word, but let's not get ahead of ourselves, eh?
Spot on
If you're so smart, how come you can't do a fucking NPV calculation? Not all investments are a good idea, amazingly enough. This is a prime example.
Literally the first picture of the linked article is of Trump next to Walker pretending to use a shovel to break ground on the plant. (Props to him: it was more convincing than his pretense at using an umbrella)
This deserves modding up -- it's insightful
So preemuch the exact same article he wrote on this topic a little while back, offering the same level of analysis and same lack of insight into what either design or experience consists of. But now with added blitheness about privacy too!
Go back and re-read my comment, and you'll see I didn't mention Americans. That's your projection right there, oh muppety one.
And I don't need to start my own Slashdot, because it's on this special thing called the World Wide Web which enables us to learn about things from all around the world including the US, the UK and lots of other countries too, oh muppettier one.
And why don't you engage with the actual substance of my critique, instead of just replying with a dumbfuck ad hominem? You could, for example, have quoted a dozen links to me that showed that many Slashdotters were in fact well aware of Ocado; or that Uber's approach already took account of global trends in online delivery; or even that you yourself had known about Ocado for ages. But no, you just whined that I pointed out a shortcoming in the analysis of several of the posts on this story. And you moaned about what you saw as my moaning, which would have been ironic of you if done intentionally, but was instead just even more stupid, oh muppietest of all.
It is hilarious how parochial most Slashdot posters are.
Online grocery shopping has been a major business in the UK, the world's most competitive grocery market (competitive, not lucrative or largest), for more than a decade.
Perhaps Uber would like to study up about Ocado (and Sainsburys.com and Tesco.com and Waitrose.com etc etc) before they jump into this market. Perhaps Slashdotters might want to learn a little bit about them as well, before confidently declaring that online grocery shopping can never be a thing.
Ocado's story, in particular, has many lessons to teach about platform vs exclusivity, the role of automation, the importance of new brands for online (eg Natoora), the cognitive differences in shopping decisions online vs in-store (smart lists etc).
A few articles here:
http://www.cityam.com/264588/d...
https://www.thegrocer.co.uk/ch...
Go look again at the post I replied to. That post did not make an argument that nothing happened. It argued that if something happened a sufficiently long time ago, it wasn't relevant any more.
Go look again at the post I replied to. That post did not make an argument that nothing happened. It argued that if something happened a sufficiently long time ago, it wasn't relevant any more.
And obviously -- *obviously* -- not everyone agrees with you that the allegations against the current nominee are not credible.
Um.
You're commenting on a story about Brett Kavanaugh's past -- you know, when he was at an elite school.
I think squeaky clean is quite a high bar.
I don't think asking that we choose people who didn't commit sexual assault is a particularly high bar. Even if they did it aaaaaaaaages ago.
Why only the liberal justices? There's quite a lot of people who would be delighted to re-open Clarence Thomas up to new background investigations.
Their constituents get to vote them out of office. Not true for Supreme Court Justices
Sigh. You wrote:
"Then your statements about the only way we could possibly have freedom of speech involves legally forcing businesses to hire people and forcing platforms to push a message are more than a little disingenuous"
I had written:
"The consequence of your stance includes requiring the government to force companies to employ unrepentant Nazi supporters, to force book publishers to publish books that will damage the sales of their other books, to force business partners to work with people they don't want to work with any more, etc. Mad."
I didn't say that I thought your stance was "the only we we could possibly have freedom of speech". I think we can have freedom of speech without requiring the government to do all those things. But I think your stance as stated implied that employers should not be able to fire unrepentant Nazi supporters. You later said that this was not the case, and you did in fact think that employers should be able to fire unrepentant Nazi supporters, under certain circumstances.
This all feels like the most bizarre discussion.
The next bit, on goal post moving:
Firing someone for a Nazi rant is an example of firing someone for what they said! It is that thing I described in my first post. My first post didn't imply that I thought employers should be able to fire someone for *anything* that they said. If you read "what they said" as "anything", then you're over-interpreting. Again.
On hippies: I don't know why you think I'd think anything different to you. Obviously, this would be bad. Obviously, morals go beyond the law. Things can be legal yet immoral.
On republicans: you originally wrote: "No, even though there's a lot of ideological overlap with the NAZI party right now, my place of employment does not fire the people for being republican."
I was confused because you were answering a question I hadn't asked. I didn't ask: "does your company to fire republicans even though there's a lot of ideological overlap with the NAZI party?"
I asked: "If a colleague of yours expressed the political views associated with Nazism, would you think your employer ought not to fire them?"
I then clarified that I did not mean those aspects of NAZI ideology that related to authoritarianism (ie the putative ideological overlap with republicans), and that I meant the aspects of NAZI ideology that relate to genocide.
In other words, I kept on trying to ask you a question about whether you were saying that someone should never be fired for expressing political views even if they were views that were completely and utterly vile, and you kept on saying someone shouldn't be fired for expressing political views that are not vile. And then you got insulted.
The outside of business thing could be interesting, but honestly it just doesn't seem worth the effort to engage with you on this because you keep on misreading my answers. In a world where we had a positive discussion, I'd be interested to know if you thought that a highly publicised political and vile statement where they were obviously linked to a company (for example, an employee expressing their support for exterminating all Jews in America on national television while wearing a Boeing badge that clearly showed they were a Boeing employee) could be justly fired by their employer. But I don't want go down yet another rabbit warren with you.
Anyway, I'm going to go and enjoy some Swiss sunshine now. More fun than this particular discussion
YAY! Then your statements about the only way we could possibly have freedom of speech involves legally forcing businesses to hire people and forcing platforms to push a message are more than a little disingenuous as this is apparently obvious and self-evident. You should really go back and redact those statements you've made since you're backtracking there. Good talk.
What statements of those would those be, then? I'm checked the thread and nope, I never once suggested businesses should be legally forced to hire people. Can you provide a quote where you think this is what I'm saying, please.
Well you really kinda glossed over all those and had a blanket statement of "it's OK to fire someone for what they said"
I beg your fucking pardon. I did no such thing. I simply pointed out that if you are so stupid as to say something against the policy of your employer, you put your job at risk. It's you that thought this meant that I thought that employers ought to have freedom to fire people on a whim just because they don't like their politics. But you massively over-read what I wrote.
And it's also self-evident right from the outset that I agree that there are a "whole spectrum of what "consequences" entail", because I bloody listed out a few of them in my OP! Divorce, being fired, etc etc. And as you point out, and again self-evidently, divorce is merely an extreme consequence where the other end is that your spouse is angry at you, and being fired is an extreme end and less extreme is being given a written warning, etc etc.
And note that ALL of them are are slid over to "Yes this should be a consequence of saying something unpopular".
"Unpopular"? That's *your* word, not mine. I didn't say anything at all about which speech ought to lead to these consequence. *Self-evidently*, this is a contested area. I don't know why you persist in ascribing to me a lack of nuance that is not implied by my first post. I keep on telling you it's an over-reach and you keep on ignoring what I'm saying. Obviously someone shouldn't be fired just for saying something merely *unpopular*. That's a ridiculously low bar.
To spell it out: my first post was intended to point out that there ought not to be an artificial constraint that says "an employer may not fire an employee on the basis of that employee's speech, no matter what that employee says, even if it's damaging to their business interests and they've gone through a careful process etc etc".
Republicans can exist without getting fired. If that's not what you meant then you should probably restate it. I don't particularly like their world-views, but I can tolerate them. Can you tolerate and live with and work alongside republicans? If not, you're a bigot.
I never mentioned Republicans, although you did. The OP wasn't about republicans. I don't know why you thought I would think someone should be fired for being Republican. I literally have no clue why you think I'd think such a thing. It's totally bizarre, and obviously not something I would think, because I'm not a complete idiot.
I also don't understand how you can both think:
1. that the concept "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is "nonsense"
2. that it's OK to fire someone for what they said. [don't shovel shit into my mouth, you're ripping out all the context and nuance and surrounds conditionals I stated. It's not OK to fire people for expressing political beliefs outside of work.]
But this is totally mad. I know those conditionals are important to you. They're important to me too. But the point is that, still, after all those conditionals have taken effect, and after a careful process has been gone through, someone can, in your view, be rightly fired for what they said. An employer should not be banned from doing this, in your view and in mine.
I don't buy the distinction you make between political
I'm not *running away* from your questions. It's just that it's self-evident right from the outset that I agree 100% that free speech is a super-set of the 1st amendment and a larger issue. There are obvious moral questions to be asked about, to continue with the example, when an employer is acting morally correctly in firing an employee for something they say, and when they are not. And it's also self-evident right from the outset that I agree that there are a "whole spectrum of what "consequences" entail", because I bloody listed out a few of them in my OP! Divorce, being fired, etc etc. And as you point out, and again self-evidently, divorce is merely an extreme consequence where the other end is that your spouse is angry at you, and being fired is an extreme end and less extreme is being given a written warning, etc etc.
I genuinely don't see what you think is a material difference between the position you hold and the position I hold. We both agree on the points above. We both agree that there are circumstances in which it's legitimate for an employer to fire an employee for something they said, but that's a big gun that ought to be used sparingly. So, tell me, what do you think you disagree with me about?
I also don't understand how you can both think:
1. that the concept "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" is "nonsense"
2. that it's OK to fire someone for what they said.
Isn't firing someone for something they said a direct illustration of the first point?
Why can't you read properly? My original post was not merely about the First Amendment. I *explicitly cited* a whole string of non-governmental responses to someone's speech in it, *including an employer firing someone*. I mean, that was the whole fucking point behind my #2 point in my original post. So, surprise surprise, I was already engaging with the notion of free speech and private actors from the very outset.
Why would you *assume* that in my thought experiments, assholes are always male? You're wrong. It's you with the unwarranted assumptions, not me.
The rest of your comment is just hilarious. Let's just be clear. In my OP, which inspired this whole string of nonsense, I said: ... doesn't promise you that you can say any shit you like without fear of being fired by your employer" ... if a mere IDEA is enough to shatter your society, that fucker was WAY too fragile and it was fucked from the get go. ie, you can't just go out and murder/blacklist/exile everyone you don't like. The NAZIs tried that and it didn't work. Stop trying to follow the NAZI playbook." [emphasis added]
"The 1st amendment
You took grave, *grave* offense to this. Among your other choice phrases in subsequent posts was this doozy:
"No, I don't think so they should be fired just just saying that
And now, here you are saying:
"Yeah, I'd agree that free speech is not absolute, and there's plenty of places I don't want to have to put up with rants. If anyone complains at work, it shuts that shit down. From anyone."
So what the *fuck* was the point of all of that, then? Your ending position is no different to my starting position.
This entire thread of nonsense has been driven by the assumptions you've made about who I am, the position I espouse, and how yours is so different from mine. Those assumptions have blocked you from properly paying attention to what I've been saying. All of which is all the funnier given that part of what you've tried to school me about is the danger of making assumptions.
It's time to wind your neck in. Go back and re-read what I first wrote. You'll find it's not obnoxious, nor drawn from the Nazi playbook (or NAZI, as you insist on writing it). It's as American as apple pie, just like the principle that you can proclaim your ideas freely, but nobody is obliged to buy you a soapbox on which to stand.
1. I'm not fucking with you. I was asking because the sense of your previous sentence was unclear to me. I didn't personally express a view in my post that this would be a good thing to do, and to be explicit, I don't think it would be. You need to calm down a bit.
2. How can I "assume" a theoretical person is a guy, when the theoretical person is in my mind? It's my thought experiment, and I'm perfectly entitled to ascribe a male identity to them. If *you* had posited the existence of a co-worker with Nazi views, and oh-so-carefully used "they" as a pronoun, and I had replied by using "he", *then* I would be making an assumption about who you had in mind. But I didn't, so the point is moot. Anyway, I don't know why you're interested in having this bizarre meta-argument over trivial stuff like the use of a personal pronoun.
3. I specifically said "a colleague...were to have a conversation with co-workers". And despite saying no, you wouldn't fire them, you suggest they should have a trip to HR to be told to shut up (and presumably face consequences if they refuse, citing free speech). So you don't seem all *that* hot on free speech in the workplace. You seem to think it's acceptable to say to someone "you can have views I don't like as a co-worker of mine, so long as you don't express them out loud at work".
Let's try another tack: do you think a prospective employer should refuse to hire an otherwise good candidate because they have a swastika tattooed on their forehead. Do you say yes, accepting that there are in fact legitimate reasons for employers to blacklist someone because of the ideas they hold and express? Or do you say no, and insist that employers must employ people who choose to express vile views, even if that will damage the interests of that business (eg damage to brand equity)?
Fascinating. Tell me, do I prefer salt and vinegar on my chips, or cheese and onion? You have privileged access to my desires, it seems.
I'm not sure whether you're saying "I think my employer ought not to fire this person" or "I think my employer ought to fire this person".
In any event, the political views I had in mind were not so much about the authoritarianism as the championing of genocide. Are you saying that if a colleague of yours were to have a conversation with co-workers in which he said, pace Lagarde, "Jews are bacillus, the carriers of decay ... who pollute every national culture ... and destroy all faiths with their materialistic liberalism" and that they should be exterminated, that this -- in and of itself -- would not be a reason for his employer to fire him?