You know... When I said a while ago that you could be fired for Ideological differences in the USA and that was perfectly legal.
I didn't know that it was perfectly legal... I was just thinking that it was more that a company could at least ASSUME you did something wrong due to complaints and never need to actually look at the source material. So someone could say you are a ISIS sympathizer for a video you make, and the company could just... Listen to the hearsay and not actually validate it.
But apparently yes... You can be fired for expressing views that are not the company's views... and this is 100% legal in the USA. Regardless if it includes hate speech or not.
Looks like the USA (and not just the USA, but I don't want to research ALL the countries right now) needs to shore up their freedom of expression laws... They aren't in the 1950s anymore where you invite the boss over for dinner in order to get a raise and having an opinion was considered faux pas.
ESPECIALLY since there is so much push towards "Consequences for dissenting opinion" and that our lives are a lot more public... And we can't just recork it.
---
---
On a less dark note...
Apparently companies that constantly churn out highly profitable but low critical acclaim works (as well as are generally poor to their employees) seem to end up getting difficulty with recruitment.
I didn't really think of that...
---
---
Finally now this IS on Sharia Law but BEFORE YOU RUN! I am not talking about the whole thing, nor do I want to. Only on one section of it that is just so puzzling to me.
Which is that a woman's testimony is worth only half that of a man's.
The reason that is so weird is because in a sort of evidence based law system such a law makes little-no sense because there is no "value" of evidence and a sort of binary True, Untrue. Certainly one could doubt the evidence presented and who presented it but that isn't gathered by a sort of judgement of the person's gender but on the validity of it.
Yet what is also SOO fascinating about this one rule in Sharia Law is I feel like I can backtrack it and get a good feel for the justice system that would have implemented it.
It would probably be a "Guilty until proven innocent" system where the court cases often boil down to a SORT OF discourse (He said, She said... though gender is irrelevant here) with less focus on hard evidence. My inexperience tells me that such a system would also include Doubt Punishments, because a system without a strong idea of innocence and guilt POSSIBLY would include lesser punishments for cases with reasonable doubt, OR in the worst case scenario allow reasonable doubt to enact a guilty verdict (as was ALSO the case)
Finally it would also suggest to me a high level of corruption within the Judge's ranks... They are made to act more upon their opinions on how they "Feel" about people. This invites, persuasion.
I wonder how far off I am... I am basing this off VERY little experience. I mean I could judge it based on the ENTIRE law, but I wanted to see how much I could dig myself into a hole based on one law.
---
---
I want to do a Case Study on Diablo 3... In how the Market affected the game.
I mean they basically bent its design towards the market. Even the final difficulty mode was entirely market driven.