First of all, Dave, this is a UK company! It's not an American company, and they don't have a Free Speech Amendment!
Jafari made the statements in America. Whether the company is based in the UK or on the moon has little to do with the intent of my statement. If you think otherwise, go read up on the origins of free speech. You might learn something.
Secondly, you seem to be a little coy about what you actually think of the statements. I have to think you agree with them.
Regarding his first statement, that America should remain predominantly white: I agree with this.
Regarding his second statement, that wealthy blacks have committed more crimes than poor whites: I lack the necessary information off hand to support or refute this position. It is not something I have studied. Therefore, I have no thoughts on it whatsoever.
Regarding his third statement, that Mexicans want to reclaim parts of the United States: I agree with this simply because they have demonstrated as much.
That's not an "opinion", that's a statement of falsifiable fact.
That's gonna be a swing and a miss. From an English dictionary (emphasis mine):
Opinion - (noun) a view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge.
My experience with Mexican immigrants is that they have much too many other worries to have any ideas about "taking back the US". They're not too pleased with the way the Mexican gov't is run, crimelords, violence, etc. THAT'S WHY THEY ARE NO LONGER IN MEXICO!
A couple of points.
First off, anecdotal experiences have nothing to do with immigration policy. I've had nothing but good experience with the immigrants I've interacted with for extended periods of time. This does not mean the growth of MS13, a Hispanic street gang, in my city has "unhappened." Immigration policy and demographics are about larger trends, not one person's individual experiences.
Second, why would we them here when they don't solve their problems at home? The U.S. government has abundant corruption problems. Our cities have huge crime problems with street gangs connected to some of the very cartels they are supposed to be fleeing. Why on earth should we welcome them into our country when they demonstrably don't fight against those things? This premise is more full of holes than a Bolivian gangbanger three days after defaulting on a loan.
Ok, lets knock down a few things you are wrong about:
"They should have defended his right to hold those positions."
Why? If these "positions" are antithetical to their worldview why should they have to defend them? As a black man I will defend the right of the Klan to speak, and hold a march, but I would in no way have them part of any product I am shipping. You are commingling two things that do NOT belong together.
"If you believe things I don't like, you can't work for me." This was my entire point.
"Yes, it would have upset the social justice left"
There is really no such thing as the "social justice left", but even if, in your worldview, there is, what the hell is the matter with people fighting for "social justice"? I mean do you actually take the time to deconstruct what you are saying? Social justice=bad? What, why? This country was founded by people looking for social justice and freedom. If the fact that there are people still fighting this fight bothers you perhaps you don't really understand the founding principles of this republic.
This is historically wrong. The United States was founded based upon principles developed during the Enlightenment. Both of these events (Enlightenment and American Independence) preceded the founding intellectual work of modern social justice and progressivism, which began at the tail end of the 1800s and became a serious school of thought in the early 1900s.
As a point of fact, the fundamental structural problem of social justice was a topic of much discussion in the early and mid-1900s because it was recognized that dissimilar interests between societal groups and the ever-changing political landscape created an unsolvable problem: you can't form a coherent system of justice when everybody wants different things at different times.
Moreover, to adopt social justice as a right and proper system of justice requires that objective morality and ethics be thrown to the wind in favor of subjectivism (I.e. justice being whatever a chosen group believes it to be at the time). This creates the rather absurd scenario of something like Nazism being "okay" so long as a sufficiently large portion of the population finds gassing Jews to be acceptable. After all, in such a scenario, it is what society would demand.
To answer the question more directly, I think that social justice is a fatally flawed philosophy that is not simply bad but a cancer and blight on society.
Here's a pro tip, to avoid being blown out of the water again: I don't form positions about things I haven't been thoroughly educated on. The next time you feel the urge to comment at me, "Did you take the time to..." the answer is almost always going to be 'yes.'
"won a huge PR victory amid a changing political climate that's moving from the left to the right."
No, they would have suffered a huge PR loss in a political climate that is moving from right to left.
Explain that to Duck Dynasty, Chick-Fil-A, Hobby Lobby, and, most recently, Based Stick Man. Or POTUS. Or the UK. Hell, they even had to invalidate a majority vote
against gay marriage in California a few years ago.
You're so plugged into the Matrix you can't even see the scoreboard, let alone the writing on the all. Sad.
We as a society are becoming more liberal, more diverse.
If you, like this person,Yooka-Laylee, lament the country not being a white-people-party-club I pity you.
So here's the deal. In one comment, you've demonstrated gross historical ignorance, denial of observed reality, and concluded it with a misrepresentation of my views ("white people party club"). Further comments re: politics, history, or economics will be ignored because you are too short to play the game.