Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by downtown, Apr 22, 2013.
Re: my position is devil's advocate.
This is what I am interested in as well. I'm just not certain shunning, particularly when it is likely to decrease financial health, actually creates better social outcomes. A corporation is motivated by profit(largely), hammering it where that hurts might make it change. People are only partially motivated by profit. You shun and help impoverish a white skinhead and it's entirely likely that a) he's not going to stop hating and b) he's been cut off from his motivation in remaining relatively stable and productive. At that point, why not go fullretard on the hate? Society has possibly now shown him it's every bit as out to get him as he feared/suspected/heard with his tinfoil hat.
Personally, I'd have a talk with the guy. I'd inform him about what I had learned, and that I was concerned. I'd ask him straight out if he can work professionally with Jews or other minorities. If he can't give a clear, positive answer to that, I would have to let him go, since he wouldn't be able to do his job.
Furthermore, I'd inform him that because of his political views I would find it impossible to let him be the supervisor of any employee who is a minority or otherwise not accepted by him. Not only would I find it hard to trust his judgment of them, but the company could easily get sued by disgruntled employees. This will of couse make it very difficult for him to advance in the company.
If I otherwise trust the guy, and he still wishes to continue working there, I let him stay on. But I'd still feel the need to keep an extra eye on him from now on, so I'm not quite sure how long that situation would be tolerable for either of us.
If he can get along with other employees I would have no problem with it. If he refuses to worth with others than that's where the problem would be
Also I decided to sell the business to Romney and video-tape him trying to be relatable with the Nazi. I'd make enough money to start a new business from the blackmail alone
I would try to actively bring him into a working relationship with minorities and keep a close eye on that (e.g. encourage the people that work with him to report anything they perceive as racist). If he can set aside his views so that they do not impact the interactions with his colleagues, I would let him stay. If that experiment fails, I would have a valid reason to fire him (and even if I was legally allowed to fire at will, I would be very reluctant to make use of that). There might be the (however slight) possibility that on closer contact with minorities he might revise his positions and I would not preemptively deny him that opportunity.
What if other employees refuse to work with him? Would you fire them instead? Sit them down and explain to them "well yes Larry is a Nazi who supports the extermination of your race from the Earth, but he really nailed that IT problem in accounting the other day"?
You know what, you guys win. Let's just turn the whole country into an open ideological war. It might be fun and kind of gratifying. If I'm lucky I'll even pick the winning team! Maybe we can ban the opposing party and execute their leaders every time an election is won? That should rapidly accelerate superior "social outcomes."
God freaking forbid we ever stop crusading and just try and live or anything. No no no, there's always an enemy that has to be found, shamed, fired, rooted out and "held accountable." We can never just stop and reflect on the fact that 95% of us, whatever our race or religion, are some of the luckiest a-holes ever born on planet earth. No, somebody somewhere is having an evil, backwards, bigoted thought and I MUST DESTROY IT!
Pretty much yes so long as Larry isn't refusing to work with them.
I might, yes. World is full of people I don't like and people who think things I don't like. I can really only hold against people the actions they undertake. Windows into men's souls, all that - I thought we were outgrowing.
Let's take your example. Larry is a neo-Nazi that works well, plays nice with others at work, doesn't make an ass out of the employer in his private life - what cause do you have to fire him? Maybe his gainful employment is what is keeping him relatively sane and non-violent. He's very wrong on a very important social issue! But he's a functioning member of society. Just like all you pro-choicers(just for funzies there). If Thaddeus can't work with him after snooping through his private life and can't get a handle on his own behavior at work...isn't that the issue then?
Well then, dude's pig food. I do not like Nazis. At all.
How about 'forget any specific laws, but let's still pretend that there is a Rule by law, so we can't just hang him up in a tree'?
^ I wonder if they learned anything from that beatdown?
I'm with Illram and Yeekim. I'd look for the most expedient means within the law to get rid of him.
(P.S. I'm taking "ignore the law" to mean "don't tell me what the law says, I'm not looking for legal advice, I'm looking for your opinion on what you would want to do".)
Tell it to the guy who is financing a group that wants to violently purge the country of non-whites.
Brodolf can go apply to News Corp or something, he's not working for me.
I'm reading some remarkably unexpected support of religious institutions firing gays here.
Then you're jumping to conclusions about the rationale behind our posts.
Possibly, differentiate it for me then? If you're bored.
Sorry bud, but we're under no moral or intellectual obligation to tolerate intolerance.
If you can't tell the difference between someone who is attracted to the same sex and someone who has chosen to actively support violent hatemongers then you are not as smart as you pretend to be.
Put simply, being gay doesn't hurt anyone, the KKK does.
Slightly longer version: There are different classes of political beliefs. A belief in the slow, democratic transition from Capitalism to Socialism to Communism belongs in one category. A belief in violent revolution belongs in another. A belief in changing the minds of Christians and converting them to Islam belongs in one category. A belief in forced conversion of Christians and the slaughter of the infidels who refuse belongs in another. A belief in reducing immigration to manageable levels through closing the doors to new immigrants belongs in one category. A belief in expelling immigrants by force or threat of incarceration belongs in another.
I'm not ready to commit to "violence" or "force" as the necessary and sufficient condition for rendering political views as not protected by law as I haven't thought it through entirely, but this is my gut feel for where the line must be drawn. c.f. hate speech rendering things not protected by the 1st amendment. There is clearly a line between a belief that is protected by free speech and a belief that should be punished as an act of violence or threat of violence against an individual or group of individuals. You personally clearly draw the line somewhere; for example, it's uncontroversial that someone who funds Al Qaeda should not be protected by free speech / freedom of association laws. So we're just deciding where the line is. I draw it such that it protects gays and the vast majority of political beliefs, but excludes beliefs that involve, you know, lynching negroes.
From my part, I am perfectly aware why we have all sorts of anti-discrimination laws (which I support, within reason). If the question was "should it be legal to fire the guy", I'd vote "no".
I understand this puts me at odds with old Immanuel, but what can a man do? I've never thought of myself as particularly "moral" person anyway.
Separate names with a comma.