Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
The Ethics of political association
Posts
I see your bullshit hypothetical and raise you a bullshit generalization.
I don't think there's the same potential for harm when talking about militant animals rights protesters as there is when talking about militant racists. I'm pretty comfortable with the courts protecting someone's right to campaign for animal rights, and not extending that protection to campaigning for racist causes.
Not bullshit, you're American, a British person just explained it to you. Either you believe him or you start citing some sources proving him wrong.
You won't engage in a hypothetical because they don't exist in a "substantial number"
which means to say that you generalize groups of people without knowing their minds or their hearts.
I judge people base on their actions.
The court system judges people based on their actions.
As El Jeffe said, intent is used in determining motive.
This group shouldn't be discriminated against unless their belief systems inferfere with their work. People who discriminate against them at work when the person has done nothing wrong should be looked at with a bit of disdain, as it's counterproductive and not much different than not working with someone who is Muslim or black or what have you.
Basically, bring them on board and let them work. They will either be a good employee or a bad one, judge them on that basis and that basis only.
You're honestly asserting that no more than a dismissable minority of people are capable of maintaining professionalism when confronted with people they strongly dislike or disagree with? I was able to act with professional courtesy towards a woman who accused me of slacking off because I left work when my wife was hemmorhaging and had to be taken to the ER and treated me like shit directly to my face. She was an evil bitch and I hated her, yet I was able to interact with her professionally. I don't think my behavior was all that remarkable.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
There is a good reason for this.
Here we go, here's how it'll work. Members of the BNP are white nationalists. Period. If they are a willful member, they are white nationalists. I am stating that an employer should have the right to dismiss or refuse employment to people based on the fact that they are white nationalists. How many times do I have to restate that before you'll read it and comprehend it? I'm not talking about making white nationalism a crime, for fuck's sake.
It is already, in the United States and many if not most western nations, completely and totally legal to not hire or fire someone for political affilitations. Not only is there legal precedent for this, there has never been a legal precedent in the other direction.
If someone decides tomorrow they want to fire you for being a republican (and this could certainly come up if you were working for, say, a democratic congressional campaign), they can, barring the existance of a contract between the two of you setting specific terms for termination.
"I ain't never been to jail!" What do you want, a cookie?! You're not supposed to go to jail, you low-expectation-having motherfucker! - Chris Rock
Sorry, it just reminded me of that quote.
I'm basically imagining the BNP as the KKK. Are they worse? Because if the KKK suddenly formed a political party, I would argue the same in their defense.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Fine. And I am saying that being a white nationalism should not be grounds for dismissal provided your workplace behavior is indistinguishable from non-white nationalists.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Do you believe that every woman is going to be an intolerable bitch to you and that they don't have the right to share your country?
Again, there's a difference, please grok. It's not about maintaining a professional face in spite of adverse situations, it's about contradicting very fundamental beliefs. If a person is doing this, they're probably changing their beliefs anyway, otherwise they're not very likely to keep up that professional manner.
I work with people from all over the damn country, and while I've discovered some of them are hopelessly racist and homophobic I've never seen one act out in such a manner.
If not: save your guitar! run! run faster!
I'd say they're broadly similar. Are you saying you think that someone should not be fired/denied a job because they are a racist, assuming that the evidence of their racism is their membership of the KKK?
If that's what you're arguing, I don't think this is a difference of opinion that can be resolved.
These people are racist to the extent of joining a white nationalist party. Belief predicates behavior. Phobias and hatred come in a lot of flavors and intensities, and these people seem to be of the more intent, less given-to-cognitive-dissonance variety.
So what's it like to operate completely free of context, reason, and rational judgment?
In the UK (and Western Europe, I assume) you have to have a "reasonable" reason to fire someone. America is exceptional in having widespread at-will employment - which is absurd.
Denied a job? Sure. If you have two candidates, and one is almost certainly a racist and the other, as far as you know, isn't, you'd be retarded to hire the former. All things equal, a non-racist is better than a racist. Not because he's simply a better person, but because he's more likely to be able to get along with other coworkers.
When the guy has already worked there for some amount of time and has given every indication that he can function without his racism becoming an issue, then you have zero reason to fire him other than simply not liking what he believes in. Now, you have every reason to not like what he believes in. He's an asshole. But unless you want to argue that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination, I don't think you have much of an argument.
And if you do think that being an asshole outside the workplace is justifiable grounds for termination even when such attitudes have no effect on work performance and wouldn't even be detectable absent outside information, where do you draw the line? Adultery is a total dick move. Should we fire people who cheat on their wives? How about fathers who weasel out of child support? People who flip off boxes of kittens?
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
In the US, we do discriminate between being fired and being dismissed for other reasons for purposes of unemloyement benefits. If you're fired for cause, you can't collect unemployment. If you're let go for other reasons, you can.
The downside, of course, being that unscrupulous employers can try to manufacture reasons why you were "fired" rather than "laid off", which happened to my wife.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Basically I think that there are very few circumstances in which belonging to the BNP would not represent a conflict of interest as far as an employer is concerned. I don't think the same could be said of adulterers, deadbeat fathers, etc.
Maddie: "I am not!"
Riley: "You're a marsupial!"
Maddie: "I am a placental mammal!"
Most of whom would not be qualified for police service either, so that argument doesn't quite hold. As ElJeffe noted, police generally have fairly strict hiring standards. They also have appearance issues few other professions have to deal with.
People have rioted over far less, any city that didn't instantly dismiss BNP officers would burn.
What are you basing this on? The policy came from a mass expulsion of closet BNP activist from the police force in about 2004, and the massive corruption problems that resulted.
Ah, misinterpreted, I thought you meant that most BNP members wouldn't qualify for Police service.
Democratic systems don't apply when the rights of a minority are being stomped underfoot, otherwise we'd still have "WHITES ONLY" bathrooms. The constitution makes this pretty clear.
If my understanding of it is correct the government doesn't technically even have the authority to do it, I mean it isn't stopping them, but then again it generally doesn't. Not allowing gays the same rights and freedoms as couples as straight people is an affront to the principles this country was founded on.
Democratic systems still apply; they just cannot violate the Constitution. Like I said, if you want to challenge it in the courtrooms, like they did with "Separate but Equal", more power to you. Just don't demand people let you speak your piece while taking action against someone else for speaking theirs.
You won't associate yourself with a push for civil rights because....some people get angry about not having civil rights?
Opposing prop 8 =/= being a dick. Like, by a long shot. In fact, opposing prop 8 pretty much just means you are for civil rights.
Not unless the groups behind that push can disassociate themselves from the harassment of opposing voters. As of yet, I have only seen support or silence from the anti-8 groups. Their position may have the moral high ground, but I see no difference between harrassing or boycotting people who voted for prop 8 than I do harassing or boycotting the people who voted against it ("but we are in the right" is not a valid argument, since I am sure both sides believe that).