Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[whichphilosophy]

[
I personally don't factor in political correctness. This is this the tool of fanatics to spook or control their flocks of impressionable sheeple.

Then why are you babbling about? Being anti-Nazi has nothing to do with political correctness.

Having to be Anti...... is Political Correctness

 

[laughing dog]

[
I personally don't factor in political correctness. This is this the tool of fanatics to spook or control their flocks of impressionable sheeple.

Then why are you babbling about? Being anti-Nazi has nothing to do with political correctness.

Having to be Anti...... is Political Correctness

Utter nonsense. No one has to be anti-Nazi, but decent human beings choose to be anti-Nazi. Using your nonsensical reasoning, anyone opposing Hitler during WWII was politically correct.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Being anti-nazi is like being anti-serial-killer; it's the normal, default position of rational, caring human beings.

 

[laughing dog]

Being anti-nazi is like being anti-serial-killer; it's the normal, default position of rational, caring human beings.

You are being "politically correct".

 

[whichphilosophy]

Having to be Anti...... is Political Correctness

Utter nonsense. No one has to be anti-Nazi, but decent human beings choose to be anti-Nazi. Using your nonsensical reasoning, anyone opposing Hitler during WWII was politically correct.

Your second sentence is correct.

 

[laughing dog]

Having to be Anti...... is Political Correctness

Utter nonsense. No one has to be anti-Nazi, but decent human beings choose to be anti-Nazi. Using your nonsensical reasoning, anyone opposing Hitler during WWII was politically correct.

Your second sentence is correct.

Which means choosing to be anti-Nazi is not being politically correct, since one does not have to choose to be anti-Nazi.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Your second sentence is correct.

Which means choosing to be anti-Nazi is not being politically correct, since one does not have to choose to be anti-Nazi.

My point
No one has to be anti-Nazi, but decent human beings choose to be anti-Nazi. Anyone opposing Hitler during WWII was XXXXX correct. No need to add sheep talk.

 

[laughing dog]

Your second sentence is correct.

Which means choosing to be anti-Nazi is not being politically correct, since one does not have to choose to be anti-Nazi.

My point
No one has to be anti-Nazi, but decent human beings choose to be anti-Nazi. Anyone opposing Hitler during WWII was XXXXX correct.

Anyone opposing Nazis at any time is correct. Yet here you are using a divisive term (your terminology) to describe such opposition.

No need to add sheep talk.

Given the volume of your baa-baaing, that is hilarious.

 

[Emily Lake]

You seem to have done a fair bit of hyperbolization and strawman erecting to sculpt the issue you want to argue against.

You seem to have done a fair bit of hyperbolization and strawman erecting to sculpt the issue you want to argue against.

We appear to agree on something - that you have no clue what you are posting about.

What started this particular line was post #61 where whichphilosophy wrote
This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

And this was written clearly in the context of this particular Nazi sympathizer.

With that in mind, please explain what you straw men and hyperboles I have erected.

That's where there's a bit of strawmanning going on, laughing dog. You were arguing that idiots should be fired for being idiots. whichphilosophy disagreed with you on that, and you've transformed that into him defending naziism.

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims and atheists for being atheists, you really might want to rethink your special pleading in this case. And beyond that, you spent several posts insisting that idiots should be fired, nobody wants to work with idiots, they make everything worse, and ignoring whichphilosophy's point that there are some jobs that an idiot is perfectly capable of doing, and where idiocy shouldn't be grounds for firing.

Your argument would work better if it weren't so clearly based on a conflation of two different topics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We appear to agree on something - that you have no clue what you are posting about.

What started this particular line was post #61 where whichphilosophy wrote
This is a pity, since every idiot has a right demonstrate their asininity.Firing him in my view infringes his rights where the law should be amended.

And this was written clearly in the context of this particular Nazi sympathizer.

With that in mind, please explain what you straw men and hyperboles I have erected.

That's where there's a bit of strawmanning going on, laughing dog. You were arguing that idiots should be fired for being idiots. whichphilosophy disagreed with you on that, and you've transformed that into him defending naziism.

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims and atheists for being atheists, you really might want to rethink your special pleading in this case. And beyond that, you spent several posts insisting that idiots should be fired, nobody wants to work with idiots, they make everything worse, and ignoring whichphilosophy's point that there are some jobs that an idiot is perfectly capable of doing, and where idiocy shouldn't be grounds for firing.

Your argument would work better if it weren't so clearly based on a conflation of two different topics.

Nazis fought a war to purify the gene pool and take over Europe. They sent over ten million 'inferior' civilians to camps to be executed. There is no good side here. To sympathize with Nazis is about as ugly a position one can hold and puts into question the viability of having a person working for you that thinks most races are impure and need to be eliminated.

Not much of a slippery slope. Fuck the Nazis, fuck their sympathizers, fuck the defenders of them.

 

[Emily Lake]

It's a no brainer really. If a person does their job they are entitled to the own views.

Amazingly a burger which is correctly cooked by a Nazi tastes the same as one cooked by a communist using an identical method.

And if the business drops because the Nazi is the cook? ...<snipped to keep related items grouped appropriately>... What if productivity of the other workers suffers because they are afraid of a Nazi?

Then that's a job performance issue, to be addressed as such.

What if the owners or some co-workers had family murdered by Nazis during WWII?

Lol. What if the owners or some co-workers had family murdered by communists during the cold war? That would be plenty of grounds to fire someone who 1) is not Russian, 2) wasn't alive during the cold war, and 3) self-identifies as a communist. Yep. Makes perfect sense!

How about this - what if the owners or some co-workers had family murdered by the Spanish inquisition? That should be plenty of grounds to fire someone who 1) is not Spanish, 2) wasn't alive during the inquisition, and 3) self-identifies as a Catholic.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs.

Nazis should be fired from employment as cooks to the general public. There are general rules one can make about workers who support genocide of others who could be patrons or workers who support serial killing of patrons. Those general rules about such extreme circumstances do not create a slippery slope because they are about safety.

Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims...

Bad analogy. Most people are religious and most people are not the same kind of idiot who would support and sympathize with genocide. So, a better analogy is whether it would be okay to fire a member of ISIS who supports the genocide of Jews some of whom are patrons. Yes, that would be okay. No, it would not be okay to fire other regular persons who do not support genocide.

I already gave an appropriate analogy in the thread earlier to a serial killer who kills children because he believes he is Christ who is bringing them to Heaven. For that matter, some of his followers (who engage in real idiocy) who sympathize with him in a cultish kind of way, claiming it as a religion and that he is the Messiah.

Yes or No: Would you also say he and his followers should be hired at the daycare center of your child? (Yes/No)?

Would you really claim this is a religious freedom issue? (Yes/No)?

Yes or No: Would you hire someone who sympathizes with those who believe in genocide of Jews, views Adolf Hitler as a role model, and is okay with criminal assaults and "agitating"* against Jews to cook food for patrons who include Jewish persons and other minorities? (Yes/No)?

*Note that the guy in question was one of the founding members of one of the Nazi Parties present at Charlottesville where there was violence against minorities, verbal support of genocide of Jews, and running down of persons by vehicle.

 

[whichphilosophy]

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs.

Nazis should be fired from employment as cooks to the general public. There are general rules one can make about workers who support genocide of others who could be patrons or workers who support serial killing of patrons. Those general rules about such extreme circumstances do not create a slippery slope because they are about safety.

Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims...

Bad analogy. Most people are religious and most people are not the same kind of idiot who would support and sympathize with genocide. So, a better analogy is whether it would be okay to fire a member of ISIS who supports the genocide of Jews some of whom are patrons. Yes, that would be okay. No, it would not be okay to fire other regular persons who do not support genocide.

I already gave an appropriate analogy in the thread earlier to a serial killer who kills children because he believes he is Christ who is bringing them to Heaven. For that matter, some of his followers (who engage in real idiocy) who sympathize with him in a cultish kind of way, claiming it as a religion and that he is the Messiah.

Yes or No: Would you also say he and his followers should be hired at the daycare center of your child? (Yes/No)?

Would you really claim this is a religious freedom issue? (Yes/No)?

Yes or No: Would you hire someone who sympathizes with those who believe in genocide of Jews, views Adolf Hitler as a role model, and is okay with criminal assaults and "agitating"* against Jews to cook food for patrons who include Jewish persons and other minorities? (Yes/No)?

*Note that the guy in question was one of the founding members of one of the Nazi Parties present at Charlottesville where there was violence against minorities, verbal support of genocide of Jews, and running down of persons by vehicle.

As a parent I never used day care.

Was the Nazi convicted of any crime.

 

[Emily Lake]

That's where there's a bit of strawmanning going on, laughing dog. You were arguing that idiots should be fired for being idiots. whichphilosophy disagreed with you on that, and you've transformed that into him defending naziism.

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims and atheists for being atheists, you really might want to rethink your special pleading in this case. And beyond that, you spent several posts insisting that idiots should be fired, nobody wants to work with idiots, they make everything worse, and ignoring whichphilosophy's point that there are some jobs that an idiot is perfectly capable of doing, and where idiocy shouldn't be grounds for firing.

Your argument would work better if it weren't so clearly based on a conflation of two different topics.

Nazis fought a war to purify the gene pool and take over Europe. They sent over ten million 'inferior' civilians to camps to be executed. There is no good side here. To sympathize with Nazis is about as ugly a position one can hold and puts into question the viability of having a person working for you that thinks most races are impure and need to be eliminated.

Not much of a slippery slope. Fuck the Nazis, fuck their sympathizers, fuck the defenders of them.

Great, and I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees.

It might be helpful to realize that nobody in this thread sympathizes with Nazis. And nobody in this thread is defending Nazism. Not a single one of us thinks Nazism is a good thing - I'm fairly certain that we all agree that it's an odious, hateful, and horrific set of beliefs.

There is, however, a very valid distinction between defending a person's rights regardless of their beliefs, and defending the beliefs themselves. In this thread, I as well as whichphilosophy and a few others, are defending the rights of fellow American citizens. Specifically, their right to be protected from violence or threats because of their beliefs.

You wouldn't support a person being fired because they were muslim, or atheist, or communist. I know you wouldn't. You wouldn't applaud an employer being threatened because he employed a muslim, or an atheist, or a communist. In all other cases, I know very well that you would not support a person being fired on the basis of their religion or political association, nor would you support their employer being coerced into firing them due to threats of violence on the basis of that religion or political association.

To value our rights to belief, political association, and free speech requires that we defend and protect that right for everyone, regardless of the specific belief, political association, or speech in which they engage. If it's only a right for people who hold the correct belief or political association, then it isn't a right. Insisting that some beliefs are so unacceptable that their holders have fewer rights than those with "good" beliefs is a betrayal of the foundation of this country. Arguing that some politics are so "bad" that those who ascribe to them are fair game for violence and discrimination is the antithesis of our democracy.

 

[Emily Lake]

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs.

Nazis should be fired from employment as cooks to the general public. There are general rules one can make about workers who support genocide of others who could be patrons or workers who support serial killing of patrons. Those general rules about such extreme circumstances do not create a slippery slope because they are about safety.

You seem to support active discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief. You seem to believe that it is an acceptable reflection of constitutional rights to preclude employment for certain types of political beliefs that you have deemed unacceptable.

In other cases, this is known as Mcarthyism, something that most people today now find completely unacceptable.

Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims...

Bad analogy. Most people are religious and most people are not the same kind of idiot who would support and sympathize with genocide. So, a better analogy is whether it would be okay to fire a member of ISIS who supports the genocide of Jews some of whom are patrons. Yes, that would be okay. No, it would not be okay to fire other regular persons who do not support genocide.

I already gave an appropriate analogy in the thread earlier to a serial killer who kills children because he believes he is Christ who is bringing them to Heaven. For that matter, some of his followers (who engage in real idiocy) who sympathize with him in a cultish kind of way, claiming it as a religion and that he is the Messiah.

Yes or No: Would you also say he and his followers should be hired at the daycare center of your child? (Yes/No)?

Would you really claim this is a religious freedom issue? (Yes/No)?

Yes or No: Would you hire someone who sympathizes with those who believe in genocide of Jews, views Adolf Hitler as a role model, and is okay with criminal assaults and "agitating"* against Jews to cook food for patrons who include Jewish persons and other minorities? (Yes/No)?

*Note that the guy in question was one of the founding members of one of the Nazi Parties present at Charlottesville where there was violence against minorities, verbal support of genocide of Jews, and running down of persons by vehicle.

So, here's the rub. As a manager, I am not allowed to ask people about their political, religious, sexual, or other ideological preferences during the hiring process. I'm also not allowed to fire a person solely on the basis of their political, religious, sexual, or ideological beliefs.

If I were to actually apply your approach, as outlined in your last question, I would end up being precluded from hiring anyone who supported punching Nazis, or otherwise was okay with criminal assaults and "agitating" against ANYONE.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

That's where there's a bit of strawmanning going on, laughing dog. You were arguing that idiots should be fired for being idiots. whichphilosophy disagreed with you on that, and you've transformed that into him defending naziism.

In general, people should not be fired for their religious or political beliefs. Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims and atheists for being atheists, you really might want to rethink your special pleading in this case. And beyond that, you spent several posts insisting that idiots should be fired, nobody wants to work with idiots, they make everything worse, and ignoring whichphilosophy's point that there are some jobs that an idiot is perfectly capable of doing, and where idiocy shouldn't be grounds for firing.

Your argument would work better if it weren't so clearly based on a conflation of two different topics.

Nazis fought a war to purify the gene pool and take over Europe. They sent over ten million 'inferior' civilians to camps to be executed. There is no good side here. To sympathize with Nazis is about as ugly a position one can hold and puts into question the viability of having a person working for you that thinks most races are impure and need to be eliminated.

Not much of a slippery slope. Fuck the Nazis, fuck their sympathizers, fuck the defenders of them.

Great, and I don't think anyone in this thread disagrees.

It might be helpful to realize that nobody in this thread sympathizes with Nazis.

No, you are just defending their right to be them.

And nobody in this thread is defending Nazism. Not a single one of us thinks Nazism is a good thing - I'm fairly certain that we all agree that it's an odious, hateful, and horrific set of beliefs.

Odd... because apparently while these sets of beliefs are "odious, hateful, and horrific" you don't seem to think they present a red flag at hiring. Unless you are supposing that no one else is qualified for a particular position.

There is, however, a very valid distinction between defending a person's rights regardless of their beliefs, and defending the beliefs themselves.

Fuck that Libertarian bullshit. This isn't about making a distinction between a person's beliefs and defending their right to have beliefs. This is about defending people that choose to be Nazis. These people support genocide (or merely castration for the "progressives" among them) , as a major party plank.

You wouldn't support a person being fired because they were muslim, or atheist, or communist.

Neither Christians, Jews, Jets fans, or people from Alabama. But I support firing and castigating (not castrating) Nazis. Look it is simple. Nazis are fucking evil. Muslims, atheists, communists can be evil, happy, contributing, slothful, naive, intelligent... it really isn't easy to tell, need to get to know them on a personal level. But Nazis... fucking evil.

See, there is that difference that makes it easy to not worry about a slippery slope. So fuck Nazis, fuck neo-nazis, and fuck anyone that defends them and their "right" to support genocide.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You seem to support active discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief.

Supporting genocide is not a "political belief". What is wrong with a person to think "genocide" is "political"?! It is a war crime.

 

[Emily Lake]

You seem to support active discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief.

Supporting genocide is not a "political belief". What is wrong with a person to think "genocide" is "political"?! It is a war crime.

Yes, it is a war crime when enacted. Just like discrimination is a crime when enacted. But supporting discrimination while not taking part in it is perfectly legal. As demonstrated by your right to support active employment discrimination on the basis of your dislike of a political ideology .

Do you support employers being allowed to ask people their political and ideological beliefs during their interview process?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You seem to support active discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief.

Supporting genocide is not a "political belief". What is wrong with a person to think "genocide" is "political"?! It is a war crime.

Yes, it is a war crime when enacted. Just like discrimination is a crime when enacted.

Moore-Coulter much?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You seem to support active discrimination in employment on the basis of political belief.

No, I seem to believe in basic rights of right to life and liberty of which those who want to commit genocide are against and actively undermine and so as a potential owner of a hypothetical establishment I would not hire any genocidal maniacs or serial killers because that would be too much risk of infringement on those rights to life and liberty of my patrons.

You seem to believe that it is an acceptable reflection of constitutional rights to preclude employment for certain types of political beliefs that you have deemed unacceptable.

No, I already told you and mentioned in the thread many times, a job at a private establishment is not a constitutional right and believing you can take away other people's right to life is not always an acceptable political or religious belief. When the employment adds risk to patrons, then they should not be hired. If they want to get a different job where there is NO RISK to patrons, then that would be fine. So, for example, if they live in a town where there are only white people and they receive wood from white people that they make rocking chairs out of, then fine, but they should not be preparing food for people they wouldn't mind poisoning as part of their "political" or "religious" belief/serial killing/genocidal tendencies.

In other cases, this is known as Mcarthyism, something that most people today now find completely unacceptable.

No, it's not McCarthyism because it is not a blanket ban due to political philosophy but instead specific bans where risk to customers' lives is introduced because of serial killing/genocidal mania. For the same reasons, I would not hire a pedophile or a serial killer of children as a daycare center employee. If you went through the exercise of answering the questions, you'd know that.

Unless you think it's perfectly acceptable to fire muslims for being muslims...

Bad analogy. Most people are religious and most people are not the same kind of idiot who would support and sympathize with genocide. So, a better analogy is whether it would be okay to fire a member of ISIS who supports the genocide of Jews some of whom are patrons. Yes, that would be okay. No, it would not be okay to fire other regular persons who do not support genocide.

I already gave an appropriate analogy in the thread earlier to a serial killer who kills children because he believes he is Christ who is bringing them to Heaven. For that matter, some of his followers (who engage in real idiocy) who sympathize with him in a cultish kind of way, claiming it as a religion and that he is the Messiah.

Yes or No: Would you also say he and his followers should be hired at the daycare center of your child? (Yes/No)?

Would you really claim this is a religious freedom issue? (Yes/No)?

Yes or No: Would you hire someone who sympathizes with those who believe in genocide of Jews, views Adolf Hitler as a role model, and is okay with criminal assaults and "agitating"* against Jews to cook food for patrons who include Jewish persons and other minorities? (Yes/No)?

*Note that the guy in question was one of the founding members of one of the Nazi Parties present at Charlottesville where there was violence against minorities, verbal support of genocide of Jews, and running down of persons by vehicle.

So, here's the rub.

What a dodge.

As a manager, I am not allowed to ask people about their political, religious, sexual, or other ideological preferences during the hiring process. I'm also not allowed to fire a person solely on the basis of their political, religious, sexual, or ideological beliefs.

Really, you can't not hire someone to a private restaurant with no govt contracting who is a serial killer who wants to kill your customers? Please show me the law that says that.

Also, why is the restaurant in Dayton Ohio not in trouble with the law? What would be the charge?

If I were to actually apply your approach, as outlined in your last question, I would end up being precluded from hiring anyone who supported punching Nazis, or otherwise was okay with criminal assaults and "agitating" against ANYONE.

Really...so at your work you could not hire a Nazi as a manager if they refused to hire Jews?

That's because all the employees go through a diversity learning program, right?