> for not doing activism in a way that explicitly benefits your business.
no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment.
I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting?
> when you're saying that employment laws don't help business
if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
> that activists advocating for workplace fairness..
Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. If you don't get the difference compare extreme examples like trigglypuff to your average every-day feminist. This makes indeed a huge difference. If you where in HR and in charge of a hiring decision who do you pick trigglypuff[SJW] or Ms. Average Feminist[not SJW]? See the difference and why it's important?
> the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs.
The fist thing is correct, employment laws are there to protect people from unfair treatment. But think about the second claim. If a lack of employment laws would prevent employees from doing their job, what would employers do to keep the company in business? They would implement an equivalent to said employment laws internally, because they want their employees to keep working.
> When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means.
I don't see how inviting troublemakers helps productivity in any way.
>no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment.
I mean, that's the point of inclusivity, marginalized people just want to be able to do their jobs and avoid politics and drama. But it's hard to do that when they're being marginalized.
>if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
A lot of them do. Small companies don't have resources to come up with extensive policies so that's where the laws become helpful.
>I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting? [...] Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates.
These comments are exactly why I say the term is emotionally loaded and you should avoid using that term, please don't draw false equivalences to attack stereotypes and claim that everyone who advocates for justice is troublemaking and promoting violence. You might not mean to do that but that's what you're doing when you use those derogatory terms in that way. This is getting really close to flamewar territory again and I don't want to continue this conversation.
no, for explicitly damaging a business. politics and drama don't contribute to a productive work environment.
I'm indeed shaming activists who promote violence or similar b/s (ie. punch a nazi, or BLM rioters, ...) for not being normal acting. Would you describe them as normal acting?
> when you're saying that employment laws don't help business
if they would help business, they wouldn't be needed because businesses would implement them as corporate policy on their own.
> that activists advocating for workplace fairness..
Again I'm not talking about people advocating for fairness. SJWs are troublemakes, not advocates. If you don't get the difference compare extreme examples like trigglypuff to your average every-day feminist. This makes indeed a huge difference. If you where in HR and in charge of a hiring decision who do you pick trigglypuff[SJW] or Ms. Average Feminist[not SJW]? See the difference and why it's important?
> the point of employment laws is to make sure your workers are treated fairly and are able to continue doing their jobs.
The fist thing is correct, employment laws are there to protect people from unfair treatment. But think about the second claim. If a lack of employment laws would prevent employees from doing their job, what would employers do to keep the company in business? They would implement an equivalent to said employment laws internally, because they want their employees to keep working.
> When you say "keep the workforce productive" that's exactly what it means.
I don't see how inviting troublemakers helps productivity in any way.