[jsiepkes]

> if I had a company I would consider adding something into contracts that we cannot fire people due to past controversial statements.

It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions" (in their eyes). The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions, behavior, etc. based on a snippet from your past.

So it's not really about something that happened in the past. It's about something that people will think will happen in the future.

[mhuffman]

>It's not that people think you need to pay for your past "transgressions"

Well we disagree about this. It often seems to be a certain amount of glee involved when someone posts something from someone's online past that might not have been a big issue back then but is a hot-button issue now. Or something that they might have childishly or ignorantly said back then. Or something that they have completely changed their view on now.

But it doesn't matter. They all seem to be immediately followed by calls of some sort of "punishment" to fit the past "crimes".

Who knows what hot-button issues of the future might be?

[topspin]

> The problem is that people think they can extrapolate your future decisions

People aren't that noble. You excuse what is callous brutalism as well intentioned error. People aren't guarding against dangerous influences. They're abusing mob power.