No.11166[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1653742247781.png (287.74 KB, 800x450, 16:9, medium.png) ImgOps Google
I'm reading a book about Oculus, which is an interesting subject in itself. Anyway Oculus was sold to Facebook, and following Facebook finding out that Oculus founder Palmer Lucky supported Donald Trump, the Facebook CEO required that Lucky cease support for Donald Trump or resign. Sadly, it was further found that Lucky ceased to be useful to Oculus even after following this dictate.
So I suppose I can ask a more general question:
Do people who are corporations have a right to choose associations based on the association's political opinions? That is, should corporations be allowed to fire or refuse to hire people based on who they vote for or which politicians they like?
Alternately, do people who are not corporations have such a right? For example, some people don't eat at Chic-Fil-A because they (he? she?) support(s) Republican causes. Is that OK?
(Also, is anyone else struggling with language now that corporations are people? Like, I tried to google how corporations identify their gender but found...nothing, really.)
It shouldn't be the case. For one, corporations aren't people, and so should not enjoy rights.
But beyond that still; If you've protections for religion, I fail to see the significant difference when it comes to politics.
So long as it doesn't interfere with your work, matters outside of that work ought be irrelevant, I'd say. > For example, some people don't eat at Chic-Fil-A because they (he? she?) support(s) Republican causes. Is that OK?
I don't buy EA products largely because of their unethical business practices.
This isn't too radically different.
I do wanna add the caveat that being open about your ideologies or political affiliations can interfere in your work indirectly.
If you for example do social work and have to guide/counsel young vulnerable people, you probably shouldn't be openly supporting anti abortion measures, as part of your assignees may be dealing with abortion.
Even from a company point of view they may prefer not to work with someone who can be a PR disaster based on their ideologies.
Though I don't think this should be enforced by the state or something.
>>11168>If you for example do social work and have to guide/counsel young vulnerable people...dealing with abortion
A Catholic may believe abortion is a mortal sin, but that must not be considered in hiring.
But religion is a special kind of thing that is never a negative, never detrimental to work, corporate image, or the capacity to do what is appropriate. When so-called religion steps outside these bounds, the activity ceases to be religion and becomes extremism.>from a company point of view they may prefer not to work with someone who can be a PR disaster based on their ideologies
A concern over bad press is pretty easy to claim, especially given any political connection is going to be hated by someone.
Personally I'm fine with politics being given the same protections as religion.
If the claim is freedom of association, protecting religion already breaches that.
Either get rid of the lot, or include it, as having separate rules is unjust and hypocritical. >>11169>A concern over bad press is pretty easy to claim, especially given any political connection is going to be hated by someone.
Couldn't the same be said for religion?
There's certainly conflicts between them, often enough
Sure, but politics could have the same effect.
In spite of some's attitudes, most political differences do nothing at all, in reality.
Corporations and the people working for them will do this regardless of whether they're allowed to or not. It is trivial to fire someone and cite some alternative reason.
This of course goes both ways. A company might choose to fire someone who donates to Blue Lives Matter, just as another company might choose to fire someone who donates to Black Lives Matter. This also applies to government and services, where people lost their jobs for donating to the "wrong" cause. Money is speech, and so donations should
be protected in the case of government employees, but this doesn't apply to corporations.
If political affiliation becomes a "protected class" as it is in D.C., then corporations would lose this ability. Otherwise they have it by default.
People who are not corporations have the right to associate or not with anyone for any reason.
As long as American political conservatives believe in antisemitism, homophobia, racism, sexism, transphobia, ableism, and so on as a result of their ideological worldviews and enact those moral values in the workplace, they'll get disciplined and maybe fired for that. That's life. It has to happen. I see no way around this.
If I'm Jewish and want to be in some way associated with a company, whether as an employee, an investor, a manager, or whatever else, I need to know that I'll be treated like anybody else and not subject to some kind of prejudice that prevents me from doing my business. And this is true for a wide variety of other groups. No way around it. America is a multiracial, multiethnic, multicultural, and mulitreligous society. If you want a segregated place to work or someplace in which you can otherwise enforce bigotry on others at the workplace, modern America is not for you.
If extreme left-wing individuals who're something like actual neo-Stalinists work someplace and treat, say, straight white Christian coworkers with the same behavior as how many generic conservatives treat black or Muslim or transgender coworkers, then the same ethics apply. Bigotry that stops commerce is bad for business. They will be fired, likely. The difference is that this group doesn't exist (for the most part) while generic conservatives do exist.
"Generic conservatives" aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, abelist, or antisemetic.
Nor are these traits exclusive to the right, besides.
Labor rather famously in the UK is under near constant flak for antisemitism, as an example. And that's hardly "neo-stalinist extreme left-wing", nor would I say a major political party in the UK "doesn't exist (for the most part).
In any case;
Black people can be bigotted.
Muslims can be bigotted.
Transgender folk can be bigotted.
Jewish folk can be bigotted.
Being any one of these things doesn't make you suddenly a one-minded person incapable of their own vices, bigotries, and beliefs.
It doesn't determine your politics or experiences. It determines a few minor characteristics. You can still be racist, sexist, homophobic, ect, while being any one of these groups.
There's a difference in that conservatives are bigoted because they're conservative: their ideological background tells them to hate certain people and thus they enact those beliefs into action.
That's not the same thing as just happening to be bigoted and also having some unrelated characteristics.
To use an analogy, a random person with red-haired locks could be prejudiced against the bald, but a card carrying member of the Bald Supremacist Leauge of America is doing something else.
Or, to be more direct about it, there's a difference between somebody happening to be a Muslim versus choosing to be a member of ISIS.
As long as American conservatives are bigots as a collective rallying cry and use bigotry in their political actions in office as well as elsewhere to make law and such to harm their enemies, that's a problem distinct from random people being mean.
>>11213>There's a difference in that conservatives are bigoted because they're conservative: their ideological background tells them to hate certain people and thus they enact those beliefs into action.
See >>11211>""Generic conservatives" aren't racist, homophobic, sexist, transphobic, abelist, or antisemetic."
Your presumption is that conservative = bigot.
This is simply put a flawed presumption. Reality does not bear this out.
We're just going to have to agree to disagree. Reality clearly demonstrates that the U.S. conservative movement is centered on bigotry and enacts this via actual policies beyond just rhetoric. That's why they've been called out by numerous former members of the group, with me being able to come up with plenty of citations of quotes if you want.
As for the central point of the thread here, back to the topic, do you agree with me that somebody prejudiced, regardless of their politics, is likely to be a damaging liability to any company and thus ought to be cut off?
If we're going by being "called out" by former members, then we can say that the left is "racist, sexist, homophobic" and so on.
Certainly been quite a few dissenters who've come out of that, who've said as much.
And it doesn't exactly take a long look to see loads of people who deign appropriate to call non-leftwing black individuals "house n****rs" online.
I'd certainly say there are a whole heap of explicitly bigotted left-wing policies being pushed into law, especially when it comes to prejudicial treaments in hiring or scholarship programs.
But none of this would make me make such a sweeping blanket statement as to declare what "political liberals" believe. To say the least, that's irresponsible.
Though I doubt it's much more than a method to describe your enemies as 'evil' besides.> do you agree with me that somebody prejudiced, regardless of their politics, is likely to be a damaging liability to any company and thus ought to be cut off?
So long as it doesn't interfere with their work, it ought be irrelevant.
What you do in your own time ought be nobody but your own's business.
If they're bigotted at work, that's a different matter. Whether right, left, christian, muslim, black, or white, it doesn't matter, you leave your ideologies at the door and do the job in a professional manner.
But this cuts to the company's side, too. They shouldn't be tracing people's social media, and using that to terminate their employment. Nor, for that matter, should others try to harass employers to get someone fired over what's done outside of their work.
And what if a conservative is exercising his or her sincere beliefs at work that can't be changed, such as refusing to serve someone who offends their opinions such as a doctor who won't see transgender patients, a baker who won't cook for a Muslim wedding, or an actor who won't perform for a film directed by a gay person?
Should they be persecuted for being conservative?
>>11220>How do you define whether or not somebody's politics are interfering with their work?
If they're incapable of dealing with customers in the required manner, regardless of their beliefs, or because of beliefs, incapable of doing the work required.
For example, if you're a vegetarian who insists they can't work with meat because of it, they probably can't work in a butchery, and shouldn't be hired.>If Jewish customers and Jewish fellow employees are uncomfortable around a conservative worker who's actions against Jews strictly outside the company
Well, let's turn this around here;
What if you've got some Muslim customers who happen to be extremely antisemetic.
Should you fire your Jewish workers, because those customers are uncomfortable around Jewish employees?
Ultimately the matter you describe seems to me to be an issue with those customers.
I don't think it fair or reasonable for the company to fire an employee over someone's fears for actions not done under the employ of that company.
>>11221>such as refusing to serve someone who offends their opinions such as a doctor who won't see transgender patients, a baker who won't cook for a Muslim wedding, or an actor who won't perform for a film directed by a gay person?
That's the type of deal I'm talking about, yes. That's personal politics interfering with their work.
Sincere beliefs or not, they're interfering with the work. I don't consider that a persecution for 'being' whatever they might be, whatever that may be.
It's perfectly reasonable to say to a black man who refuses to serve someone for being white is incapable of doing the work you hired them to do, and so fire them.
The distinction at play is, however, whether or not they're going to do the work you hired them to do.
If a customer refuses to be served by a black man, that's not the black man's fault. That's on the customer. They're the ones refusing service, and the black man can still preform that service were the unreasonable complaint withdrawn.
Not at all the same thing since being conservative is a debatable chosen identity while the racial and religious status of being Jewish is a category trait, I think.
Still, wouldn't some kind of reasonable common sense apply here, anyways?
How much can you trust the promise of a conservative employee who's animated by hatred against Jews, to where it's a core part of their life, to totally segregate work from personal actions? Realistically, what are they supposed to do if a coworker happens to be Jewish? Just they never talk to each other? They never make eye contact? They never share the same room?
I consider politics to be about the same choice as religion.
Religion certainly has the same connotation of ideology as politics, even if vague when getting into the determinations, as with something like 'conservative' for instance.>Still, wouldn't some kind of reasonable common sense apply here, anyways?
"Reasonable" and "common sense" are nebulous terms used for their emotional appeal.
I've rarely encountered a situation where they mean much more than an arbitrary selection of pick-and-choose.>How much can you trust the promise of a conservative employee who's animated by hatred against Jews, to where it's a core part of their life, to totally segregate work from personal actions?
How much can you trust the promise of a Muslim employee, who's animated by fundamentalist beliefs, to the point where that religion is a core part of their life, to totally segregate work from personal actions?
Ultimately, I consider the question irrelevant.
We should always err on the side of innocence.
Presumption of guilt defaults to injustice.>Just they never talk to each other? They never make eye contact? They never share the same room?
This'd fall under being incapable of the job.
Working with others is a requirement for most any work.
How much leeway would you give conservative employees in conflict either other employees with this?
Suppose some John Smith only says one racial slur in public at the office. Once. He won't apologize. Is that enough to be a fireable offense?
What if he apologizes, but it's not accepted? Still fireable? Or no?
What if we're talking anti-Jewish and/or anti-transgender slurs? Same thing? Or no?
Can you start to see the perspective of employers here, when it comes to the gamble of hiring an open conservative in America today?
>>11225> what if a black customer demands not to be served by a man in a Klansman robe?
What if they demand not to be served by a woman in a hijab?
I think both would likely go against uniform policies. But ultimately that depends on the company.
Same with the request. Ultimately, that's on the company whether or not to facilitate.>Would it not be reasonable for a company to agree with this because consumer popularity means higher profits?
I have no qualms with this so long as the employee is not punished for matters they have no responsibility for.
Companies often have a lot of employees. If someone insists on a female or a male staff member, that's on the company if they are willing to move around people to facilitate that request.
>>11227>How much leeway would you give conservative employees in conflict either other employees with this?
They ought get the same treatment as everyone else.
Fair is fair. Treating others differently is the core of bigotry.>Is that enough to be a fireable offense?
Depends on the company.
There are certainly plenty who have a zero-tolerance policy on swearing.
So long as it applies equally, if someone deigns to toss around slurs for any other group, that's their choice.
Apology or no, makes no difference.
Are you really not getting that you're supporting conservatives being fired for being conservative and that applying your principles is going to mean extreme right-wing pushback to those employers?
Exactly, then, what's happening now in U.S. society?
The problem with the "same treatment" mindset is that somebody random who, say, sexually harassed a transgender colleague and got caught isn't going to have any real defense.
While a conservative does have a defense: "it's my right based on my sincerely held beliefs to behave like this and if you fire me its discrimination."
Shouldn't they be allowed to live out their lives in freedom based upon their moral values in the workplace?
Well, unlike you, I do not buy in to the unreasonable presumption that all conservatives are spouting racial slurs 24/7 and can't help but be bigoted whenever they're working.
So, no, consequently I think these are policies anyone reasonable can quite easily follow, which is the vast, vast majority of conservatives. Hell, it's the majority of even full-blown bigots, whether right or left wing, frankly.
Most folk can understand work requires professionalism.
What in the world are you on about?
No. Of course they're not going to have that defense.
Where did I ever once suggest such a stupid, insane thing?
Did you even read what I've said throughout this conversation?
I can't believe I have to say this, but obviously I think that if you break the fucking law, regardless of if it's at work or not, you should be punished.
Who the hell thinks otherwise?
But if the employee only does bigoted things to customers, colleagues, investors, and others off the clock, strictly putting their emotions into a box while at work, employers shouldn't take into account the employee as a whole person? That would be wrong? It's fine if it's not on the clock? Trying to understand your approach.
I've never been an employer. I confess. Yet I really can't imagine being one and deciding that somebody with a general ethical attitude and overall behavior that's totally dicey is worth hiring even if they'd do the job well... in most circumstances. Some, sure. It would depend. A literal ISIS sympathizer might be a fine burger cook at a fast food place, but I wouldn't want him or her as my lawyer or surgeon, say.
Are you seriously not aware that America is, right now at this very moment, a place where you can disrupt your job with bigotry and its a valid defense to say "I'm a conservative and that's my values, so it's discrimination to fire me"?
Are you seriously not understanding that this is what conservatives do here? That they break employment policies and use the "But I'm a conservative" stance as a shield? I'm kind of astonished.
>>11234>But if the employee only does bigoted things to customers, colleagues, investors, and others off the clock, strictly putting their emotions into a box while at work, employers shouldn't take into account the employee as a whole person?
Depends on what you mean. Though I'd certainly say if, for example, someone's ex works at a company, they shouldn't use that relation as grounds to fire them.
Likewise, if a pair of employees've had arguments off work, or if a manager's made some social media comments about someone who later becomes an investor.
There's obviously a line for talking about matters on the job, elsewhere. You for quite obvious reasons can't just go out and damage the reputation of a company off work, calling their management trash and their investors corrupt.
But that's regardless of politics.>A literal ISIS sympathizer might be a fine burger cook at a fast food place, but I wouldn't want him or her as my lawyer or surgeon, say.
So long as that doesn't interfere with their work, I wouldn't care much.
>>11235> America is, right now at this very moment, a place where you can disrupt your job with bigotry and its a valid defense to say "I'm a conservative and that's my values, so it's discrimination to fire me"?
It absolutely as an objective matter of fact is not.
There is no legal defense whatsoever for this.
And cancel culture's well proven at this point, it certainly happens.
Companies are quick to cave to pressure, and rare to defend their employees.
And all that's off-work things, at that.
I don't know what you're looking at, but I sure as hell cannot go to my work, call someone a racial slur, and expect "I'm a conservative" to be any kind of defense.
Company'd drop me in a heartbeat. Corporations are rare to consider employees to begin with. Even just responding angrily to a rude customer is liable to get me fired.
Companies consider employees quite expendable in this country.
I understand that there's shades of gray here, and that's important, but this seems to be dancing around the core problem that's facing the country.
If you're an employee who says and does personally harmful things either on or off the clock, generally speaking, it's becoming the case that you'll get fired for that.
I'm just kind of wondering if both specifically and broadly you personally think that's alright, because I'm really not getting where you're coming from.
And there's the fundamental issue that an attack on employees being bigots on or off the clock is going to be an attack on conservatives that the right-wing opposesses now and will do so in the future.
You can get fired for being a conservative. Yes. That's happening now. I'm not saying that it doesn't happen.
What I'm saying is that if you're fired for being a conservative (such as by actively harassing a transgender customer, say), then you're socially now able to cry out "cancel culture" and you'll get the support of your fellow conservatives. Even if, yes, you're still fired. You've got a defense. Not a legal defense. But an ethical one.
In my personal opinion, while I find myself generally hating ideological segregation and other kinds of polarization in life, I can't see a way around this issue. It just has to be how it is. I think. Bigotry is just bad for business.
>>11238>I'm just kind of wondering if both specifically and broadly you personally think that's alright, because I'm really not getting where you're coming from.
As I've said repeatedly;
An employee should not be judged for matters that are not relevant to their work.
What you do in your own time is your own business, not the company's.
You ought be judged for your actions on the job, not someone's reaction to you, not someone's reaction to what you do elsewhere, nor what you do elsewhere.>And there's the fundamental issue that an attack on employees being bigots on or off the clock is going to be an attack on conservatives that the right-wing opposesses now and will do so in the future.
Because you mistakenly view all conservatives as bigots, due to your own extreme bigotry, yes.
But as I said; Even full on bigots, whether right or left wing, understand the distinction between on and off the clock.
Professionalism is a well understood standard.
That's not "fired for being a conservative".
That's being fired for harassing a customer.
I'm very skeptical of your claim. I doubt many'd buy in to it. At least not without knowing the actual reasons, even just as bare as you say.
The vast, vast majority of conservatives think it's wrong to harass people, whether at work or as a customer.
I'd hope that's applicable to the vast majority of Americans, generally. Though, I suppose with the statements of people like Maxine Waters, not to mention the practice of cancel culture as a whole, perhaps that's not as universal as I'd like to believe.
Still, conservatives absolutely value professionalism, regardless, so harassing customers no matter the reasoning is not going to be acceptable to them.
We're going to have to agree to disagree in that I think that somebody as a whole person ought to matter in the employment context: and so behaving terribly off the clock in the context of causing other people harm can morally make you worth firing because you're a liability even if you've presently harmed nobody on the clock.
I would justify this in the sense that being an employee is being a productive investment in terms of personal character, and so you're a waste of the company's time and resources if you're an ethically depraved person. You might not be doing such on the job, but you're making general society worse. And, as well, it's likely that you'll bring it on the clock sooner or later.
This is a general standard, though. Logic applies. A janitor could be a literal Nazi complete with a closet full of uniforms to where that doesn't matter. Still, I support the general standard.
Doesn't it frankly seem a problem to you to force conservatives against their will to treat other people nicely and decently in the workplace if their genuine and sincere beliefs command them to be true to their moral principles and harm others?
Aren't you creating via force a 1984 style kind of Orwellian imposition on then when they can't say antisemitic or homophobic or whatever things to others? When they can't segregate themselves from others? When they're forced to celebrate diversity? Isn't that thought control? Isn't that evil? Isn't that too woke? Shouldn't conservatives be allowed to follow their hearts and treat others as badly as they supposedly deserve to be treated?
I'm not one with any particular reason not to support coercing people against their will to be nice and not harm others even if their beliefs demand otherwise. That's me. I can go on about it but won't.
I'm just wondering though as a conservative yourself why are you so willing to throw your kind under the bus, honestly?
I fail to see how this ought not cut both ways, in regards to any other category.
Religion follows much the same items. There are plenty of fundamentalist muslims or jews with beliefs that might fall under this 'harm' umbrella, assuming I'm correct in presuming that 'harm' is more nebulous than the typical "direct physical damage".>I would justify this in the sense that being an employee is being a productive investment in terms of personal character, and so you're a waste of the company's time and resources if you're an ethically depraved person. You might not be doing such on the job, but you're making general society worse. And, as well, it's likely that you'll bring it on the clock sooner or later.
You do realize this is exactly the kind of argument a racist would use, yes? How many managers've insisted they're not hiring this or that minority, because they're "not worth the investment", or are inherently "ethically depraved" and they'll "likely bring it on the clock sooner or later"?
Whether you're "ethically depraved" by the view of some corpo policymaker (rarely people I'd consider ethical, to begin with) has little bearing on whether or not you'll fulfill the productive requirements of the work.
Personal character is largely irrelevant to this aspect, to begin with. And certainly the effect on general society, as though anyone's got a monopoly on what constitutes an improvement or a failing in regards to general society, is not going to be helped by making a 2nd class based on unreasonable and unjust judgements for actions that have no bearing on their employment.
Frankly, if you want to talk about "ethically depraved" or "making general society worse", these types of standards certainly fall under the umbrella to me.
>>11243>Doesn't it frankly seem a problem to you to force conservatives against their will to treat other people nicely and decently in the workplace if their genuine and sincere beliefs command them to be true to their moral principles and harm others?
That applies to everyone regardless of their political beliefs.
Have you never worked a job before?
Professionalism to the customer is required. Professionalism to your colleagues is required.
This is regardless of their pleasantness or likeability. This is regardless of your preferences or beliefs.
My "genuine and sincere beliefs" may be that the customer I'm serving is an asshole.
Hell, maybe it's a fact.
I still can't call him an asshole, and expect not to have repercussions from management.
And this is all irrespective of political belief.
Sincere question; Do you think your delivery guy can say whatever the fuck he wants to you, when you give him a 1$ bill as a tip?
Do you think it's a "1984 orwellian imposition" to say "No, you can't curse out a customer for not giving you a bigger tip"?
If you want to declare the entire institution of work as unethical orwellian authoritarianistic impositions upon the individual, I guess you can, but that seems thoroughly unreasonable to me.
I'm just going to have to agree to disagree again.
There's a fundamental category difference between, say, firing somebody from their job for being Jewish versus firing somebody from their job for being a neo-Nazi.
In one circumstance, you've got a rational and reasonable fear that somebody who genuinely and sincerely advocates for, promotes, and threatens coercive harm will bring that into your firm and be a horrible liability.
In the other circumstance, there's quite literally nothing solid, no logic whatsoever but just a personal preference.
It whould be nice to be an absolute stoic lost in apathy and simply say "a belief is a belief", but that's not how actual reality works. Distinctions matter. I know it doesn't seem 'fair', but I'd counter-argue that a Kantian moral principle of "you are not hireable if you cause harm deliberately to others while you are otherwise" can be universal and resonable.
You're still not getting the fact that if I'm a conservative then I can harm somebody on or off the clock and get to claim "I did that because of my beliefs". That's since it's, well, an objective factual statement. I'm a conservative. I think that I'm of a class of humans better than others. I want them to now their place. It's my genuine, true-blue worldview at the core of my soul. I don't have a choice whether or not to break an employment policy: my morals demand it. That's what's being claimed in America today.
This is fundamentally different than almost all other identies in terms of work.
You're also still not getting the fact that if I'm a conservative and you force me against my will not just to say nice things to goddess deviant interiors but actually serve them, work alongside them, take their orders, and so on that I'm very clearly losing freedom in a clear-cut way that can't be disputed. I'm not allowed allowed behave like I would be if America was like the 1950s. I don't have the social status that I belive myself entitled to.
And also that if I'm disciplined or fired it would be in a real and non-arguable way be me persecuted for my politics. I'd be suffering. I might even lose my house and not even be able to afford the basics... what if I really needed that job? But I happened to be a conservative?
consider it rational, though.
Frankly, I consider you quite thoroughly bigoted when it comes to the matter of conservatives, well beyond rationality or reality.
If the standard is what the individual may well 'believe' personally, that's an inconsistent one, as inevitably different people have different perspectives.
I'm sure there's some out there who will insist their fear of Muslims are "rational and reasonable" and would "genuinely and sincerely" advocate for "coercive harm will bring that into your firm and be a horrible liability.".
The bigotry of management should not be the determining factor, however.
Again I will repeat; You're literally using Nazis rhetoric here.
You're telling me we need to use different standards for different people, because of some nebulous moral standard of 'harm' and fear, which may well not exist in reality and certainly is not applicable to all.
This type of rhetoric has existed for a long, long time.
The usual result is 2nd class citizens, and a whole lot of unrest.
This seems to be something you yourself admitted to, as well;>>11230>"Are you really not getting that you're supporting conservatives being fired for being conservative and that applying your principles is going to mean extreme right-wing pushback to those employers?"
You're talking about a much farther reaction than mine, after all.
What happens when you get conservatives pushing back against your policies?
What do you do when they decide to enact similar policies against you?
>>11247>You're still not getting the fact that if I'm a conservative then I can harm somebody on or off the clock and get to claim "I did that because of my beliefs".
What does that have to do with my post?
I was not referring to conservatives, harm, or beliefs.
As I stated already; I do not agree with that notion.
Please re-read >>11241
It's not a functional defense. Thus it certainly can be applied to anything else.
If some moron says "I shot that man because I'm 6' tall", that's meaningless.
I don't care.
It means nothing.
It has no bearing on whether or not he bears responsibility for what he's done.>You're also still not getting the fact that if I'm a conservative and you force me against my will not just to say nice things to goddess deviant interiors but actually serve them, work alongside them, take their orders, and so on that I'm very clearly losing freedom in a clear-cut way that can't be disputed.
Please reread my post >>11245
Professionalism is a requirement in all work.
Unless you are claiming that the entire institution of work is immoral due to an orwellian imposition, I find this argument thoroughly unreasonable.>And also that if I'm disciplined or fired it would be in a real and non-arguable way be me persecuted for my politics.
If I shoot you for being, let's say, Jewish as a radical extremist Muslim, and they put me in prison for it, is this a "real and non-arguable way for me to be persecuted for my beliefs"?
Again, I find the argument thoroughly unreasonable.
Unless you're going to say actions aren't immoral, beliefs are, which I would obviously find thoroughly disagreeable, I cannot see why there would exist a double-standard that applies in this case, but nowhere else.
At a basic level, I don't think that it's valid to say that somebody is bigoted against bigots. This is an inherently illogical concept.
Nobody is born a bigot. Nobody makes an idle choice to be a bigot. Nobody falls into being a bigot.
Consciously deciding to be a bigot is a matter of deliberate belief focused on specific behavior. It's more analogous to, say, somebody deciding to be a child molester. They're being judged harshly and subject to something uncomfortable, yes. And that's because they deliberately took amorphous emotional impulses and decided to turn it into an Identity.
Condemning somebody by their behavior, especially when it's a matter of a broader context, simply can't be considered the same thing as criticism for passively having feelings, for signing up idly to a group, or whatever else.
Can't real world experience mean something? When's the last time a neo-Nazi gun dealer or a group of them tried to engage in mass murder? When has, say, a centrist ice cream man done the same? Or a libertarian pianist? Or an apolitical carpenter?
Given that conservatives in America already are hellbent on pushing not just employment discrimination but also all possible other forms of discrimination in all areas towards their enemies (such as transgender people), there's really nowhere else for them to go, honestly.
A glass that's already 100% full can hold no more.
But I do bring this up because likely both conservatives and the general population are probably going to ever more be at odds and try to get 'the edge' over the other somehow.
It's regrettable but don't see a way out.
>>11250>I don't think that it's valid to say that somebody is bigoted against bigots.
I'm not saying you are.
But you're also declaring a sweeping swath of people bigots because of your own bigotry, not theirs.
Contrary to your belief, not all conservatives are bigotted.
Bigots can be from anywhere. There's, as mentioned, plenty on the left. Yet it'd be thoroughly irresponsible to say all liberals are bigots.
You personally don't care if somebody says "I got persecuted because I'm a conservative" when they're fired for violating company policies. I know this. You know this.
But that doesn't matter. Literally millions care. And they will make it your problem (and mine) in the process.
>>11251>Given that conservatives in America already are hellbent on pushing not just employment discrimination but also all possible other forms of discrimination in all areas towards their enemies (such as transgender people), there's really nowhere else for them to go, honestly.
This does not seem to be the case in reality.>But I do bring this up because likely both conservatives and the general population are probably going to ever more be at odds and try to get 'the edge' over the other somehow.
Sure, so long as policies like the ones you propose are maintained and put into practice.
You're literally creating a 2nd class of citizen, after all.
The inevitable result of such things, as history has shown countless times, is bloodshed.
This is why I advocate for equal treatment. Rather than just whatever we 'feel' like based on our particular perspectives, we ought hold actual principled positions.
It's easy to do as you do, and label an entire group of people as evil monsters, all bigotted scum who hurt society.
This has been done historically numerous times.
It doesn't work, though.
Again, you still don't seem to understand that "firing people from their jobs from being bigots on the clock" and "firing conservatives for being conservatives" are completely identical concepts.
A bigot who gets fired is going to scream "I got persecuted! I got discriminated against! I'm the victim!". That's how it goes. It don't understand how're you not getting this.
Conservatives exist who aren't bigoted. This doesn't contradict the fact that bigots who get called out say "I did it because I'm conservative". It's basic politics. "No enemies on the right." Plus "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Or so the nonbigots say.
It's not really any different than how I can say that both of my parents and certainly at least one of my grandparents have views that honestly make them bigots. But if we were playing sports of some kind, we could all be on the same team. And it would be 'Our Team Over All'. The right just applies that mindset to today's politics.
>>11255>Again, you still don't seem to understand that "firing people from their jobs from being bigots on the clock" and "firing conservatives for being conservatives" are completely identical concepts.
Because they aren't.>A bigot who gets fired is going to scream "I got persecuted! I got discriminated against! I'm the victim!". That's how it goes. It don't understand how're you not getting this.
They can do that.
Doesn't mean they're the victim.
You say I'm "not getting this", yet I've explicitly said as much already.
Read my posts, please.
I usually answer these things.>This doesn't contradict the fact that bigots who get called out say "I did it because I'm conservative".
See above. Or for that matter, see the post you're quoting.>"If some moron says "I shot that man because I'm 6' tall", that's meaningless."> It's basic politics. "No enemies on the right." Plus "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Or so the nonbigots say.
This has nothing to do with what's being said, so I've no idea your point.
You need to understand that I also want equal treatment.
I want a universal standard of "you're not employable if you're a morally depraved person who advocates for bigotry and thus either outright or subtly promotes coercive harm against your perceived enemies, either by governments or some other violent agent, but you're employable otherwise".
That's an ethical rule that I want everywhere, in an unbiased fashion.
It would mean not employing neo-Nazis. Or neo-Stalinsts. Or ISIS members. Or, frankly yes, the vast majority of conservatives.
This would be something that I honestly wouldn't like. But it would be inevitable. That after the recent arrest of a gang of neo-Nazis in Idaho interrupted from committing a terrorist attack resulted in American conservatives going something like "how dare our alliance against the left be picked on by the government" rather speaks for itself.
Also, it is the case in reality. That you're not aware of such discrimination like... it's "the world is actually flat" level denialism. But... whatever. I can't educate you if you're willfully blind.
I suggest honestly just going to Google and searching "LGBT discrimination" if you care to leave your bubble.
>>11257>you're not employable if you're a morally depraved person who advocates for bigotry
Who determines that?
Because, you seem to've already been suggested the majority of conservatives are bigotted.
So I certainly wouldn't trust your judgement.
Not to mention, again, this argument's been made countless times throughout history.
How many tyrants have used claims of "moral depravity" to deny the rights of dissidents?>That after the recent arrest of a gang of neo-Nazis in Idaho interrupted from committing a terrorist attack resulted in American conservatives going something like "how dare our alliance against the left be picked on by the government" rather speaks for itself.
Plainly put, after your repeated statements thus far, I do not trust you to accurately present these cases.
Who is saying this? What exactly are they saying? Why are they saying it?>>11258
Discrimination certainly exists, but I've no idea what you're referring to.
Your refusal to back it up with anything more than a "JUST GOOGLE IT", though, is thoroughly telling,
I also can't get over the irony that I'm calling for stopping the employment of bigots, who want to make me and others stay second-class citizens in America, and you're opposing this because it would make the bigots into second-class citizens.
Again, as with child molesters, it's a matter of deliberately chosen behavior and core identity being rotten. Anybody can wake up at any day and decide "I'm not going to be a bigot to anybody today" or "I'm not going to have sex with any children today". You can't wake up one day and not be black. Or not be transgender. And so on.
Who determines whether or not an employee is a good employee or a bad one in terms of productivity?
If you trust them with that highly complex and nuanced judgement to which it's all shades of grey, why not with bigotry?
Hell, you even judge employers with the literal power over life and death in terms of the medical management of hospital treatment, assuming you've ever been hospitalized.
So, why not my universal ethical standard?
>>11260>I also can't get over the irony that I'm calling for stopping the employment of bigots, who want to make me and others stay second-class citizens in America, and you're opposing this because it would make the bigots into second-class citizens.
Because you use "bigot" and "conservative" synonymously.
I wonder why that might make one distrust the intentions of another...>>11261>Who determines whether or not an employee is a good employee or a bad one in terms of productivity?
Typically, that's done through stats.
It's fairly easy to see the direct performance of an employee.>If you trust them with that highly complex and nuanced judgement to which it's all shades of grey, why not with bigotry?
Because there's a massive distinction between saying "This employee generates revenue" and "this employee is a good person".
As you've demonstrated yourself, bigotry is not universally stanadardized as a definition.>Hell, you even judge employers with the literal power over life and death in terms of the medical management of hospital treatment, assuming you've ever been hospitalized.
The wording on this is shoddy, but I'm of the stance that medical stuff like that ought be covered by the state, if that's what you're getting at.
I've no idea otherwise.>So, why not my universal ethical standard?
Why not Hitler's?
Why not Stalin's?
Why not Mao's?
Why not Mussolini's?
History's full of people trying to dictate morality like that.
There's a reason rights works as a better metric.
Also, plainly put, I'd like to point out that we're talking about conservatives losing their jobs. That's it. It isn't coming from the government, so it's not state oppression. It's just general social standards.
This coming at a time where as a transgender person conservatives don't just want me fired from all jobs but also want me kicked out of all housing, denied all medical care, prevented from running for office, and basically anything else that would upset the conservative viewpoint that I'm a second-class citizen. And, of course, a great many conservatives genuinely would like to murder me and the rest of us. This coming not just from random nuts but popular conservative media personalities.
What about my rights?
Why don't I have rights?
Why can't I have the businesses I support oppose people who want me dead?
Why can't I have businesses welcome me as a customer, employee, investor, or whatever else by making it clear that I'm accepted while those who want me dead aren't?
>>11263>Also, plainly put, I'd like to point out that we're talking about conservatives losing their jobs. That's it. It isn't coming from the government, so it's not state oppression. It's just general social standards.
Just because it isn't from the government doesn't mean it's acceptable.
You aren't, I presume, going to declare all the racial segregation on the part of businesses to be perfectly fine, are you?
Surely we shouldn't have white-only restaurants, or put signs up saying "negros need not apply", right?>>11264
Nobody said you don't have rights.
Your attempts at such an appeal are thus largely meaningless to me
Ironically, though, your description therein makes it patently obvious, you aren't talking about rights.
Rights apply fairly and evenly to everyone.
Yet I'm pretty sure you'd be quite upset if some business was to apply this 'right' you supposedly have, in the reverse. Would it deign to support those who oppose you, for instance, or make clear you aren't accepted while others are.
We're going to have to agree to disagree because I think that "not being a bigot" is a rather clear and distinct line that can be used to divide the employable from the not.
It's not statistical, but neither are other common business evaluations such as "is a team player", "acts polite", "goes the extra mile for customers", and so on. If all of those such subjective measurements in terms of morality are used, I don't see how the easy and simple universal ethical rule of "isn't a bigot" can't be added.
You're badly not getting this.
Being hostile to bigots is being nice to regular people.
Being nice to regular people is being hostile to bigots.
You can't be supportive of both. Its like being supportive of both children and child molesters. You have to pick one.
I'd like rights that apply fairly and evenly to everyone.
That means that people who want to remove those rights from me and others have to be opposed.
I'd like for that to take place through social debate and regular democratic governance, although the love for political violence and embrace of autocracy by the right lately makes that harder and harder still. But it's worth it. Important.
Considering you view the majority of conservatives as bigots, it's very clearly not a 'clear and distinct line'.>but neither are other common business evaluations such as "is a team player", "acts polite", "goes the extra mile for customers", and so on.
True, and those common evaluations are examples of absolute shit practices by corporations, frankly.
These are nebulous determinative factors that functionally mean less "this is a good employee" and more "we want to fire this guy without cause and get away with it"
But you clearly have more faith in big business than I, so I'll digress on that point.
It's not that I trust or like big business.
It's that I think as a matter of basic property rights, first, and social moral standards to keep civilization from falling apart, second, and good business practices, third, that employers ought to have the right to ax bigots. And I consider it morally right as well as something that should be legal. Both.
Broadly speaking, it's more that I think governments and other instutions in American life have been more tyrannical than big business, frankly.
>>11268>I'd like for that to take place through social debate and regular democratic governance, although the love for political violence and embrace of autocracy by the right lately makes that harder and harder still. But it's worth it. Important.
This is pretty much case and point why I find it so difficult to take you at your word.
You simultaneously insist you want the same as me, everyone to have equal rights under the law, while ignoring what your side does and blaming the entirety of the right for all sorts of insane nonsense.
There's not been a more authoritarian president than Biden, yet you'll insist that it's the right who's "embraced autocracy".
There's been riot after riot, violence after violence, constant intimidation and outright murders in cold-blooded ambushes at this point, by the left, but it's the right who loves political violence.
Why on earth would I trust you, given your clear and present biases, in dictating moral standards to anyone, let alone people's livelihoods?
It seems to me, you'd likely lump my family into the same category, though we've done nothing to you, nor anyone else, for being "harmful conservatives".
Why should I be denied a job, left penniless on the street in a system that hates me, because you wish to play moral arbitrator?
Frankly, given that your side quite literally goes well beyond wanting me and my people to be unemployable to the point of openly calling for murder of us, I think that I'm amazingly nice and unreasonably caring in what I'm advocating.
I just want companies to oppose bigotry as good business. That's it. Feel free to be a bigot on your own time. Government shouldn't stop your free speech or anything else. Hell, get armed too if you want. As long a you're a law-abiding citizen about that.
On the other hand, if your side takes power across the U.S. again my best case scenario is being homeless and viewed as a subhuman via state discrimination. Worst case is my corpse hanging from a lamppost. That's that.
>>11272>Frankly, given that your side quite literally goes well beyond wanting me and my people to be unemployable to the point of openly calling for murder of us, I think that I'm amazingly nice and unreasonably caring in what I'm advocating.
And here's another example of what I mean.
It's "your side" with this whole lot.
You group us all together, with people who you can't even cite, as though I hold that stance.
Shall I lump you in with the like of Stalin, and presume you want me murdered in the gulags, too?
Do you think this hostile presumption will net us a safer, better society? Or do you think this might well just create hostile tribes forced to destroy one another simply to survive?>Feel free to be a bigot on your own time.
Except that we've already established through several posts and replies, you do not think people ought be allowed to be a bigot on their own time.
Are you just going to ignore your own argument through countless posts, now?>On the other hand, if your side takes power across the U.S. again my best case scenario is being homeless and viewed as a subhuman via state discrimination. Worst case is my corpse hanging from a lamppost. That's that.
And if your side gets power, I'll likely be shot, my family locked away in some gulag forced labor camp, our lands stolen, and our kids forced through reeducation.
See how productive it is to presume sides?
Look how great the discussion we're getting here. Now we both presume the other is a cold-blooded murderer, and that the only chance for survival is to oppress the other.
How great. You've managed to devolve politics back into the ancient days, when we'd kill one another purely for who's from what tribe.
Popular conservatives call for murdering transgender people. Popular transgender people don't call for murdering conservatives. I know that you badly want to "but it's both sides" this. But you truly can't.
Literally all I want is to accepted and valued for what I was born as. That's it. I want the bare minimum of human rights, especially the right to life. That's it.
That ask will never, ever be the same as that what's being asked for from your side. It just isn't. At all.
>>11276>Popular conservatives call for murdering transgender people.
Cite your sources. I've not seen it.
I've got Maxine Waters telling her followers to harass those she disagrees with in their daily lives, if you'd like. But I'm pretty certain most every politician knows, you can't just encourage murders.> I want the bare minimum of human rights, especially the right to life. That's it.
You do not have a right to acceptance. Nobody is obligated to care about you, nor even be nice to you.
Nor do you even have a right to life.
It's no violation of rights if you get killed in a traffic collision, nor is it a violation of rights if you jump off a mountain, nor a violation of rights if you had a heart attack.
Again, all I want is companies to oppose bigotry. That's it. If you want a regular job, then either actually choose not to be a bigot or at least pretend in your open social life not to be one. This is an incredibly easy request. If being a bigot is so deeply important that it trumps everything else, then I guess it's reaonable to say that you're going to have to accept that others won't like your choice and won't want to have anything to do with you.
It has to be legal to be a bigot. Be armed. Exercise free speech rights. Of course. But don't assume that you've a right to make others want to listen to you. Let alone associate with you.
Nothing about this is unreasonable. Honestly, I feel like a pathetic centrist stereotype for typing it out. In a normal country such as, say, Austria or Germany public workplace expressions of bigotry put you in actual jail. All I want is a pink slip.
Going to completely disagree.
If you're a human being with a conscience, then you should care about others and support others in terms of their God-given human rights.
But I can't make somebody else think they they should value other peoples lives.
That's a fundamental ethical aspect of life that goes back to preschool, really.
If you don't have the mental wiring to care, then you won't.
I'd also like to point out that it's conservatives who start the whole 'our side' versus 'your side' thing since in the abstract there's no inherent reason for it.
Two babies playing aren't going to care if one is Jewish and the other not. Or one disabled or the other not. Or whatever else.
It's an imposition from the outside getting carefully taught in order for one individual to be supposedly inferior or superior to the other, coming from some conservative with a view of who's best.
And as I've said numerous times; You've demonstrated yourself to be an unreliable definition of bigot, showing exactly the kind of issue with these moral judgements.
Your standards are not universal. Nor do I think they're even consistent in respect to your own beliefs, given again you seem to be more than happy to make sweeping assertions of other groups, with the claim that it's okay because they're an enemy faction.> In a normal country such as, say, Austria or Germany public workplace expressions of bigotry put you in actual jail.
You claim the right wants authoritarianism, and yet argue that authoritarian hellhole nations that quite literally do not have the most basic fundamental rights codified into law are "normal"...
Considering you were earlier trying to argue that telling people they need to be polite at work was some kind of 1984 extreme authoritarianism, too, I genuinely don't think you've got a consistent belief here.
>>11280>If you're a human being with a conscience, then you should care about others and support others in terms of their God-given human rights.
That has nothing to do with what I've just pointed to.
Sure, I care about rights. I never said I didn't.
I just said nobody's obligated
You really make a habit of replying before you read my posts.
Flatly put, you've been the one insisting "conservatives" and "bigot" are synonymous, this entire thread. Hell, you're doing the same type of rot right there in this reply.
The idea that it's conservatives who are doing the 'our side vs ur side' is laughable, considering your actions.
The sole individual responsible for such rhetoric here and now is you.
I am not going to entertain your attempts to dodge responsibility and blame others for your own actions.
Well, no kidding, bigots and their ideological best friends who unconditionally support them (like how even regular conservatives cover for neo-Nazis and such based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend") are going to have a definition of bigotry that has no connection to reality.
Among the 75% or whatever broad majority of normal people in the country without blinding bias, though, there can be fair rules.
Please provide the citations that show 75% of the country have a consistent fair-ruled definition of what is bigotry.
I know full well you can't. Because ultimately, you've been doing nothing but making sweeping assertions of the country, as though they're fact, with no basis whatsoever in reality.
Ironic that you complain of some supposed lack of connection to reality in some other imagined group's definitions of bigotry, while demonstrating you've not got a consistent standard yourself.
You rather clearly demonstrate yourself exactly why this is an abhorrent standard to determine whether or not people ought have the capacity to feed themselves and their family.
You are, if you have a heart, obligated to care.
Of course, nobody else can make you not be a bad person ethically if you choose to be one. That's life. You can't teach moral standards like mathematics or such.
"If you have a heart" isn't a cause for obligation.
Morally speaking, you have none. Emotional appeals do not change that.
So some random no-name candidate constitutes "popular conservatives", leaving aside the plural, and apparently "transgenders" constitutes anti-constitutional traitors.
I'm not overly shocked, this is about what I expected. But still. You should mind your hyperbole.
This guy's a nutter, to be sure, but the claim he's calling for the murder of transgender people is just outright nonsensical.>>11292
I do not think you've been nice at all.
You've certainly been more than happy to make sweeping assertions about me and my family, all for the crime of having different politics to you.
To be honest, if this is your detachment from objective factual reality after looking at the article, future discussion between us is pointless.
I'll just close by saying that I think that ultimately your side will lose and that America will never become a fascist dictatorship in which we get put in coffins.
Bro, I read the fucking article.
It is an objective fact you're lying about it's content. Sorry if truth fucking upsets you.
I never once said I want fascism, at all, nor have I ever suggested anything anywhere near that. I've quite consistently argued for less control than you, quite frankly. You're the one who wants to start ostracizing your fellow citizen for arbitrary characteristics, after all.
Your labeling anyone who dares show your dishonesty as some fascist tells us everything we need to know about you.
Your best find to what you call "popular conservative" is some candidate that doesn't even hold any office or have any power? You'll forgive me for not finding that particularly meaningful, won't you? We're talking about someone with about as much political clout and power as vermin supreme. Plus he's not calling for the execution of trans people. The most extreme interpretation would be he's calling for the arrest and trial of parents and teachers who push transitioning on children at an early age. Try to make sure you warm up before making a stretch like that or you'll pull a muscle. >>11295
I've told you this before, but you've swallowed their pill, you've eaten the propaganda. You'd be better off if you stopped that. I personally hate the south and a lot of foundational parts of social conservatism, but such a dogmatic, unsympathetic approach accomplishes nothing. It's the same as some conservative seeing all liberals as entitled rioters who want to rape kids and are brainwashed by the state.
You clearly didn't read it at all. Or else you simply are blind. My God, is this really what politics has come to in America? You literally can't understand what you see with your own eyeballs?
I hope there won't be a civil war.
I both read the item, and watched the clip provided.
He did not call for the murder of transgenders. That is flatly a lie.
It as an objective statement of fact did not occur. Not even the article claims it occurred.
My God, did you even begin to read the article?
I despair for this country.
Please provide the direct quote from this guy where he says he wants to murder transgenders.
it doesn't happen, so you won't. Not even the article says that. The most they'll go is to claim in the title, a notoriously untruthful segment of most articles, that he wants to execute parents of transgender kids.
You're just outright making up stuff now.
Shit, I guess when Obama was talking about drone strikes on ISIS, that meant he was totally saying he was going to murder all republicans, right?
The article provides a quote block from the guy directly; >"We need to hold people for treason, start having some public hearings, and start executing people who are found guilty for their treasonous acts against the Constitution of the United States of America,” Burns concluded. “Just like they did back in 1776.”
Your narrative is flatly and objectively false. The guy's a loony to be sure. But you're still lying about what he's supposedly said.
>>11304>From an ethical perspective you guys morally deserve paragraph after paragraph of profanity filled bile in order to make this situation even begin to be morally even.
And if this isn't everything you need to know at this point, I don't know what is.
Those who disagree with you deserve mistreatment for that crime. How dare they have different views and understandings. How dare they hold me to account.
Clearly everyone who dares go against you deserves profanity filled bile.
Nobody here is going to kill you.
Your deluded schizophrenia is not reality.
It would help if you guys even had a slight relationship with reality, even a tiny one.
I still think that your side is going to lose in the long run.
At a base level, you can't kill all of us.
Genuinely the sort of thing someone with schizophrenia would say. You should seek professional help, because this is not a healthy mentality, and professional help might prevent you from doing something tragic. >>11310
What do you think my "side" is? Tell me. I want to just get a sense of how much projecting you're doing, even though i just told you I'm not a conservative, please, tell me what you think my "side" is.
It's literally in the title of the article.
I don't even know how to begin to coexist on Earth with your side, I really don't.
I actually value the historical Nazis in Germany kind of higher because they were hateful bigots advocating for oppression and were intellectually honest about that, instead of inventing some kind of an ideological blindness scam where bigotry wasn't real and the Jews were just deluded paranoics.
Is there anything that I can say at this point?
Literally anything at all?
Titles of this nature are usually about 80% exaggerated clickbait. Welcome to the modern information age, where exaggeration and clickbait reign supreme ;-;. Reading the article actually tells you more nuance, albeit with a very clear bias from the author.>>11314
I already told you what i want you to do. It's right there in my tiny post.
1) seek professional help to manage your potential anxiety/delusions to prevent you from doing something dangerous.
2) tell me what you think my political ideals are, since you seem to think i have a side, i'd like you to tell me what you think my side is, what my political ideals are, because i'm genuinely curious as to what this twisted image you have of me is.
3) Work on your reading comprehension
I never said anything about punishment, or perceiving you as mentally inferior. There's a difference between being a bit dull and dumb, and being unhinged and psychologically unwell. I perceive you as being delusional, not dumb. I believe you refuse to engage with your higher brain functions because you've built yourself an ideology house, and you refuse to leave it, rationalizing anything you see into place like a hammer forces a nail. Many people do this, to be honest, it's the nature of the house you've built, one that i believe may lead you to violence, that worries me.