Sorry, another news from this asshole, but this is too much assholery to don’t be shared

Despite him being a shitty boss that fired employees that criticized him on twitter, he promised an “unlimited” legal defense fund to fight against employers that fired employees because of something they wrote on Twitter.

Under his tweet a lot of “verified” (=right wing) accounts plauded this and asked to fight employers who fired employees for having written something homophobic

72 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
reply
56 points

I’d be inclined to think he got dumped because of these levels of pathologic behaviour- if this is what we see in public, I can only imagine the things that happened in private between those two.

permalink
report
parent
reply
15 points
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
55 points

His first wife publicly said that she felt a prisoner in her house, he’s a psychopath

permalink
report
parent
reply
27 points

Look he’s clearly trying to control as much of the world as possible. Controlling his wife completely is guaranteed

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

He likes to pretend that he’s some Roman emperor god amongst mortals and we are all his playthings. If he were alive in Roman times who knows, he might have been a solid Nero but this is modern times. I suspect if we could see the tweets that historical figures would write we would have a hugely different perspective on them. Many people we hold in high regard were equal levels of dickhead. Unfortunately for him we got to see who he really is and you can’t rehab that image. All he had to do was shut the fuck up and play with his rockets. Instead he will only be remembered as a snowflake right wing troll. Nothing more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
32 points

yeah, could we maybe not frame it as “trans people hurt him so he’s lashing out” type nonsense?
Not only is it false (he was like this long before that, you just had to be paying attention), but it also provides fuel to transphobes, who already make up enough, but we don’t need to hand them more.

permalink
report
parent
reply
18 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
11 points
*

I didn’t think you intended any malice, it’s just the way we frame things is important and our words have impact, which is why I pointed it out.

All I intended was to mock Musk for being the stereotypical macho asshole who can’t accept the end of a relationship with dignity.

next time you can just say that, it’s accurate and places the blame where it belongs!

Still he can go fuck himself.

absolutely, I’m in no way trying to defend him here, it’s just about trying to focus on the right thing and not play in to already damaging stereotypes (the “gay/rans panic” defence is where this particular one ends up).

permalink
report
parent
reply
19 points
*

It’s not that “trans people hurt him”, it’s that he got dumped for being a dickweed and then blamed it jealously on a trans person. Also, his daughter who disowned him and the fact that he explicitly had all 10 of his kids with IVF so he could choose that they be born male says a lot.

permalink
report
parent
reply
13 points

What will people do? Sue him to provide the promised legal funds they need to sue their employers?

permalink
report
reply
35 points

Dude was forced to buy Twitter because he couldn’t stop his big mouth. Seems he hasn’t learned. Lmao.

permalink
report
reply
92 points

They aren’t ‘Tweets’ anymore. They are Xcretes.

permalink
report
reply
23 points
*
Deleted by creator
permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points

Except when they’re used in court as evidence, then they’re called “xzibits”

permalink
report
parent
reply
20 points

Yo dawg we heard you like evidence

permalink
report
parent
reply

Xcrements.

permalink
report
parent
reply
31 points

We make our employees sign a form when they’re hired stating that they will not mention our company or any of its employees on social media in a negative way. It’s standard practice. Any company big enough to have its own lawyer(s), they will advise them to do that because it can help prevent serious legal Issues.

permalink
report
reply
10 points

Even if I hadn’t agreed to this it would be a no brainer. If you found your friend talking shit about you they wouldn’t be your friend anymore, why would an employer react any different?

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

I don’t know what kind of friends you have, but your employer is not your friend, nor your family.
They are there to exploit your labour for profit, and will only ever defend themselves, never you.

(this isn’t to say I agree with musk or anything, fuck him and anything he does, and fuck the bigots, they deserve consequences to their actions, but the idea that anyone would defend their boss like they would defend a friend makes me sad and angry and massively frustrated. Those contracts Karlos mentioned are 100% ass covering by a company that is more concerned with its reputation than it is with its employees, which when you consider we live in capitalism is to be expected, but it still seems to escape so so many people - 99% of employers don’t give two shits about you, including, and maybe especially, those who are really good at convincing you that they value “loyalty”)

permalink
report
parent
reply
5 points

I didn’t say I think I’m friends with my company but to expect consequences when you get caught talking shit.

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

Or potential future employers

permalink
report
parent
reply
37 points
*

We make our employees sign a form when they’re hired stating that they will not mention our company or any of its employees on social media in a negative way. It’s standard practice

The NLRB ruled that non-disparagement clauses are not enforceable

https://www.axios.com/2023/03/27/labor-board-says-non-disparagement-clauses-are-unlawful

It’s a clear violation of the first amendment… Also, referring to the company you work for as “we” while talking about firing another employee is cringe as fuck.

permalink
report
parent
reply
9 points

Yeah idk man, I would not call it “a clear violation” based on your link. This is basically the NLRB’s opinion and they expect to be challenged on it.

Also I think we need to delineate those folks who are genuinely facing retaliation for discuss working conditions, and those who want Elon to help them sue because they got fired for saying the N slur on Twitter or other troll bullshit

permalink
report
parent
reply
25 points

It has literally nothing to do with the first amendment.

The first amendment gives you zero protections from anyone but the government. All other entities are entitled to respond to your speech however the fuck they want.

permalink
report
parent
reply
6 points

@conciselyverbose
No, they need to do so within existing law and ideally also social norms. It’s not ok for Bob to go after you with a rifle just because you said you don’t like his hairstyle. That he can fire you for the same is atrocious.
@Moonrise2473 @Karlos_Cantana @prole

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points
*

Oh ok… So I guess that means the National Labor Relations Act is unconstitutional (it’s not, it was upheld by SCOTUS in the 30s), because it explicitly prevents employers from firing or otherwise retaliating against employees for discussing salary.

https://www.nlrb.gov/about-nlrb/rights-we-protect/your-rights/your-rights-to-discuss-wages

Or do you think an employer should be allowed to fire someone for that?

Maybe don’t give this current Supreme Court any ideas given their blatant disregard for stare decisis/precedence, and Chevron deference…

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

Most people work in at-will states so really they don’t even need to say they’re firing you for any particular reason.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points
*

Non-disparagement clauses (are intended to) effect people after they’ve already left the place of employment, usually. That’s why they’re bullshit and largely unenforceable.

Why they fired you isn’t really relevant when they’re suing you years later for saying something bad about them on Twitter.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

The first amendment only protects you from being prosecuted by the government for things you say (and it’s even limited… You can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre for instance).

The first amendment doesn’t apply here, at all.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

Does that extend to employer review websites like GlassDoor?

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@beehaw.org

Create post

A nice place to discuss rumors, happenings, innovations, and challenges in the technology sphere. We also welcome discussions on the intersections of technology and society. If it’s technological news or discussion of technology, it probably belongs here.

Remember the overriding ethos on Beehaw: Be(e) Nice. Each user you encounter here is a person, and should be treated with kindness (even if they’re wrong, or use a Linux distro you don’t like). Personal attacks will not be tolerated.

Subcommunities on Beehaw:


This community’s icon was made by Aaron Schneider, under the CC-BY-NC-SA 4.0 license.

Community stats

  • 2.7K

    Monthly active users

  • 2.9K

    Posts

  • 53K

    Comments