Employers in the US often include “morality clauses” that mean they can fire you because they deem you to be harming the reputation of the company due to behavior outside of work.

More importantly than “the rules”, though, US employers can fire you for basically any reason they want and then just lie about it. Nobody is going to force them to be truthful. Not even if they are union busting. The Biden-Harris NLRB, which the president dragged his feet staffing and staffed with wet blankets, has even upheld the Trump NLRB Electrolux decision - and the vast majority of people never get to the point of launching a lawsuit that would be relevant, as it costs tens of thousands of dollars.

If you want power in the workplace you need to organize a union competently and develop capacity real leverage (direct action, community support, naming and shaming).

Your question is for “straight males”, so those answering it are implicitly saying, " I am a straight male".

This is a subset of the population, so if you wanted to identify a user here, this would be a ckue. It would be useless on its own, but I’d they share more clues over time, they may reveal themselves accidentally to someone trying to fix them. Examples:

• The city or state they live in.

• Their age range.

• Their ethnic identity.

Just that much info, which people will easily expose if they answer questions like this, could be enough to identify someone. There are only so many straight 23 year old dudes from Guam living in a particular suburb of Baltimore.

I would recommend that anyone concerned with privacy either use a burner account or not answer these kinds of questions.

While statistically I’m sure there are many straight men here, doxxing and other forms of identification are enabled by combining different breadcrumbs of information.

The news media are for-profit. They are selling you entertainment masquerading as information. In this endeavor, they focus on two major things:

1. Ratings, really just how they can make money through ad revenue.

2. Branding and access. Every news media outlet projects an “angle” or “style” meant to be appealing to a subset of the “market”.

What they are covering is party duopoly horse race politics. Others have said that one of the two parties winning is a foregone conclusion, but they have not considered their own participation in this “inevitability”, nor how the media does its part to ensure it. It is a self-fulfilling prophecy, really just a means of control and self-disempowerment that is only maintained by political miseducation. And this is before we get to the misconception that political power and engagement is simply how you vote.

The horse race politics aspect serves both of news media’s main interests. It gets ratings from the couch-dwelling partisans who get to feel like they are watching a battle between their good side and the other evil side. And often from a brand that confirms that they are the good side of good people. To do this most effectively they need access, they need entertaining figures representing the party duopoly. When they spend time on third parties they either slot it into this framework so that representatives of the duopoly can share their PR strategy against them or they are very short pieces for color (this is rare).

There’s no “form a stable government” step in the US. A party with 30% of the vote can take the whole thing. The US government is already stable, it is owned by the capitalists and staffed by bureaucrats and Dem/GOP politicians. They compete to haggle over which ruling class strategy for profit maximization is best.

You are correct that there is a bargaining chip aspect, though. But that is a level of electoral calculus far beyond people that think political power is a trolley problem based on a meme.

It is not poor design. The system is working as intended. Unless you are a white male landowner you were never supposed to have a vote and slave states were supposed to be buffered against popular will, per this restriction.