edit: I did not scroll far enough in the article to see his second comment. That one is much worse, but firing people for their opinions strikes me as a dangerous precedent.
In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the city…You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so close to us. It’s a burden and a liability having them so close to us. Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I’d consider thinking different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too close to her cardboard box hasn’t made anyone’s life better in a while.
pbpaste | fold -s -w 77 | sed "s/^/ /" | pbcopy
The quote in question:
In downtown SF the degenerates gather like hyenas, spit, urinate, taunt
you, sell drugs, get rowdy, they act like they own the center of the
city…You can preach compassion, equality, and be the biggest lover in the
world, but there is an area of town for degenerates and an area of town for
the working class. There is nothing positive gained from having them so
close to us. It’s a burden and a liability having them so close to us.
Believe me, if they added the smallest iota of value I’d consider thinking
different, but the crazy toothless lady who kicks everyone that gets too
close to her cardboard box hasn’t made anyone’s life better in a while.The second one, more tinged with frustration and denigrating language, is not in the QZ article, but is quoted in the TechCrunch article linked form that one.
But, might I ask, why are we so intent on firing people immediately when stuff from the past is dug up? Should they not be given a chance to explain themselves, apologize, or perhaps even claim to stand by the sentiment they expressed?
I can understand this practice for certain very high-profile figures like celebrity endorsements, models, CEOs; situations where there's usually a clause in their contract that 'negative publicity' they incur that's affects the sponsor by association, but for (relatively) average people, this may just produce a chilling effect -- many claim it already has.