• chiliedogg@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    130
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    12 days ago

    While I wholeheartedly agree with her message, the reality is that any employee that interrupts a company event to criticize the company until they are escorted out of the room is gonna be fired regardless of the accuracy of their statements. We should be appalled at Microsoft’s complicity in Gaza, not that they fired an employee.

    I applaud her for her stand, but she and everyone knew this would result in her termination.

    • wellheh@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      12 days ago

      Not wrong there, though I find it humorous they expected her to apologize in the dismissal letter

    • msage@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      11 days ago

      I know that’s not the intention, but saying it like that slides into apology territory.

      We should be absolutely appalled at the firing, maybe to a lesser extent, but there is no better time to point out this than during a big event.

      It’s kinda like saying ‘protestors should not disrupt public spaces’, like they have done everything else, what else do people need to wake up and draw the line?

    • Noxy@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      11 days ago

      No. Absolutely fuck everything about your argument against the fired employee. We should be appalled at her termination as well as Microsoft’s atrocities.

      Did you mean to say we shouldn’t be surprised that she got fired, or do you truly believe nobody should be appalled at Microsoft’s decision to fire her?

      • catloaf@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 days ago

        Civil disobedience involves the acceptance of consequences.

        • Noxy@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 days ago

          No. It may involve the expectation of consequences, for the sake of planning for retaliation, but anybody who condemns atrocities should also oppose retaliation against the condemnation.

          Maybe some folks commit civil disobedience with the intention of voluntarily facing the consequences, but that’s entirely up to those individuals. Even in that case, they then depend on the broader society supporting their disobedience and demanding their retaliators back down.

          Absolutely fuck everything about this “well they had it coming” apologia mindset.

      • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 days ago

        Name a job where interrupting a CEO’s presentation in public wouldn’t be a terminable offense. What employee handbook says “If you’ve exhausted all other internal channels and are unhappy with the company’s direction, just call out the boss in front of thousands of people and there won’t be consequences.”

        If your company is that evil and unsettling to change, you call them out and resign. Calling them out but still wanting to be paid is saying you’re okay with taking blood money as long as you’re saying it’s bad.

        • Noxy@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 days ago

          I don’t give a tenth of a rat’s shit. People gotta have a place to live, food to eat, and healthcare, and all of those require employment. Unless you can show me another employer in her field who isn’t committing or aiding atrocities, which I’m confident you cannot.