In the US, bigots instinctively recognize and protect each other like impostors in Among Us.

> This is the hill you want to die on? That being a bigot should be a protected status for CEOs?

That is a wildly uncharitable take. I'm not OP, but I believe that nobody, CEOs or otherwise, should be fired for their activities outside of work. That can be political beliefs, but doesn't have to be either. And yes, that means that sometimes someone whose beliefs you find repugnant is going to have a good job. That is the price of a free society, and I think it's worth it.

It's a business decision.

Imagine, instead, the opinion he expressed outside of work is that Firefox sucks and nobody should use it. Should he be fired then?

As a CEO, your opinion and perspective is MARKETING. You determine if customers stay or leave. And causing customers to leave is obviously a fireable offense.

So Subway should bring back Jared and Jello should bring back Cosby? Freedom is not a one-way street that guarantees the right to be awful without social consequences.

> That is the price of a free society, and I think it's worth it.

A society free enough to fund hatred, but not one free enough for employers to make decisions based on that?

The words "bigot" and "racist" have been so overused that they've lost all meaning. "Fascist" is not all that far behind. In a recent interview, Nick Fuentes (much more deserving of the bigot label than Eich) openly said he's a racist. I suspect he lost 0 supporters by doing this. Abusing the language like this has consequences - not good ones.

Definition of bigot from Oxford Languages: a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Explain how the word isn't being used according to its definition.

> Nick Fuentes openly said he's a racist.

Do you doubt him? In March 2025, he said, "Jews are running society, women need to shut the fuck up, Blacks need to be imprisoned for the most part, and we would live in paradise ... White men need to run the household, they need to run the country, they need to run the companies. They just need to run everything, it's that simple. It's literally that simple."

> I suspect he lost 0 supporters by doing this.

You seem to believe that his supporters think he isn't actually racist.

I think GP's point isn't that Fuentes isn't racist, it's that the term "racist" lost a lot of its bite precisely because it was thrown around so recklessly and applied to people who obviously weren't "bad guys". So now you can actually go and openly say things like "I'm racist" and mean it, and there's still plenty of people who don't see a problem with that.

> So now you can actually go and openly say things like "I'm racist" and mean it, and there's still plenty of people who don't see a problem with that.

My point is that the people (Fuentes supporters) that he said see no problem with that are racists themselves, or why would they be Fuentes supporters? That's his whole schtick. They don't see a problem with him saying racist things, so why would they see a problem with him directly admitting he is a racist? https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/conservative-writer-says...