Nazi sympathizer profiled in New York Times loses job

[laughing dog]

Irrelevant to the situation.
Employers sack who they want as well.
Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

See my post above. Workers' rights should not be perverted to discriminate against views, even where today political correctness is attempting to undermine freedom of views.

As has been pointed out, this is not necessarily about discriminating against points of views - there are solid business reasons for such dismissals. Furthermore, being anti-Nazi is not "political correctness" but being a decent member of the human race.

Some idiots actually do a good job.

I have worked in a number of different areas, and I know lots of workers, and no one likes working with a real idiot. No one - it makes one's work harder (i.e. it reduces productivity). If you don't believe me, just ask your co-workers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

As has been pointed out, this is not necessarily about discriminating against points of views - there are solid business reasons for such dismissals. Furthermore, being anti-Nazi is not "political correctness" but being a decent member of the human race.

This certainly can not be overemphasized! To say that firing someone being a Nazi sympathizer is PC is taking the ridiculous right-wing bullshit notion of PC, and making it as bullshit and meaningless as it can possible be within the limits of language.

Simply put, it is very hard to trust anyone that sympathizes with a political organization that managed to slaughter over 10 million civilians in less than 6 years, in a massive push in eugenics and bigotry.

 

[Emily Lake]

I'm late to this party, but I think that he should not have been fired. If his Nazi sympathies aren't affecting his job performance or his relations with other employees, then he deserves to stay on the job.

He wasn't fired because of job performance. He wasn't really even fired because of his employer's views of his beliefs. He was fired (as were his spouse and brother-in-law) because the owner of the restaurant received threats of violence and death if they weren't fired. His personal beliefs weren't affecting his job performance, given that until the article was published, his employer did not know he was a white nationalist.

That puts this into a pretty tricky spot for me. On the one hand, I strongly uphold each person's right to both belief and speech, regardless of how odious I find those beliefs to be. In this respect, I am opposed to him losing his job as a result of his beliefs, let alone the secondary effect on his family. On the other hand, I can definitely sympathize with the restaurant owner for his actions, as I would not expect the owner to suffer violence or threats in order to protect the rights of another person.

At the end of the day, to me, the blame lies with the mob mentality that it's acceptable to threaten others in order to squash their beliefs. That view is profoundly undemocratic.

 

[Emily Lake]

If someone is an idiot, the odds are he or she is either not doing the job or will screw up royally in the future. Furthermore, in this case, an idiot working as a server is most likely alienating customers, which is bad for business or is causing problems with his co-workers.

The problems being caused for the business and co-workers weren't coming from this particular idiot. The problems were coming from the general populace, many of whom hadn't even been to the restaurant, but who felt justified in threatening the owner and the other employees as a result of learning that this idiot had idiotic beliefs.
https://tippnews.com/571-grill-and-draft-house-formal-response/

 

[Emily Lake]

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

 

[Emily Lake]

Simply put, it is very hard to trust anyone that sympathizes with a political organization that managed to slaughter over 10 million civilians in less than 6 years, in a massive push in eugenics and bigotry.

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Simply put, it is very hard to trust anyone that sympathizes with a political organization that managed to slaughter over 10 million civilians in less than 6 years, in a massive push in eugenics and bigotry.

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

As of 2011, academic consensus has not been achieved on causes of large scale killings by states, including by states governed by communists. In particular, the number of comparative studies suggesting causes is limited. The highest death tolls that have been documented in communist states occurred in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin, in the People's Republic of China under Mao Zedong, and in Cambodia under the Khmer Rouge. The estimates of the number of non-combatants killed by these three regimes alone range from a low of 21 million to a high of 70 million. There have also been killings on a smaller scale in North Korea, Vietnam, and some Eastern European and African countries.

but communists don't actually support such killings even if someone who people think (or even claimed) to be a communist...

So, for example, there was a guy at Charlottesville saying ~"I'm here because I believe in republican govt, killing jews, and the free market."

If you hire a communist he might go on break with other employees and talk about unionizing while complaining about the big company bureaucrats while he smokes a clove cigarette, but he's not going to try to plan killing jewish and black customers with others. [Exception?: if you hire someone who supports the North Korean dictatorship I have no idea what they'd do. depending on job requirements, it might be a bad idea and also, I am not sure they are communists.]

 

[whichphilosophy]

I'm late to this party, but I think that he should not have been fired. If his Nazi sympathies aren't affecting his job performance or his relations with other employees, then he deserves to stay on the job.

He wasn't fired because of job performance. He wasn't really even fired because of his employer's views of his beliefs. He was fired (as were his spouse and brother-in-law) because the owner of the restaurant received threats of violence and death if they weren't fired. His personal beliefs weren't affecting his job performance, given that until the article was published, his employer did not know he was a white nationalist.

That puts this into a pretty tricky spot for me. On the one hand, I strongly uphold each person's right to both belief and speech, regardless of how odious I find those beliefs to be. In this respect, I am opposed to him losing his job as a result of his beliefs, let alone the secondary effect on his family. On the other hand, I can definitely sympathize with the restaurant owner for his actions, as I would not expect the owner to suffer violence or threats in order to protect the rights of another person.

At the end of the day, to me, the blame lies with the mob mentality that it's acceptable to threaten others in order to squash their beliefs. That view is profoundly undemocratic.

The Ultra-Left's contribution to humanity is changing the English language and replacing freedom of expression with Political Correctness of thought and expression.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

but communists don't actually support such killings even if someone who people think (or even claimed) to be a communist...

So, for example, there was a guy at Charlottesville saying ~"I'm here because I believe in republican govt, killing jews, and the free market."

If you hire a communist he might go on break with other employees and talk about unionizing while complaining about the big company bureaucrats while he smokes a clove cigarette, but he's not going to try to plan killing jewish and black customers with others. [Exception?: if you hire someone who supports the North Korean dictatorship I have no idea what they'd do. depending on job requirements, it might be a bad idea and also, I am not sure they are communists.]

If an North Korean is hired to flip burgers, it's hard to correlate that with Kim's missile tests.

 

[whichphilosophy]

As has been pointed out, this is not necessarily about discriminating against points of views - there are solid business reasons for such dismissals. Furthermore, being anti-Nazi is not "political correctness" but being a decent member of the human race.

Some idiots actually do a good job.

I have worked in a number of different areas, and I know lots of workers, and no one likes working with a real idiot. No one - it makes one's work harder (i.e. it reduces productivity). If you don't believe me, just ask your co-workers.

Firing him would be on the basis of his views. For idiots it depends on the nature of the work. They can't do all jobs.
The ultra-right and Ultra-Left share common bond in bigotry.

 

[Emily Lake]

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

but communists don't actually support such killings even if someone who people think (or even claimed) to be a communist...

So, for example, there was a guy at Charlottesville saying ~"I'm here because I believe in republican govt, killing jews, and the free market."

If you hire a communist he might go on break with other employees and talk about unionizing while complaining about the big company bureaucrats while he smokes a clove cigarette, but he's not going to try to plan killing jewish and black customers with others. [Exception?: if you hire someone who supports the North Korean dictatorship I have no idea what they'd do. depending on job requirements, it might be a bad idea and also, I am not sure they are communists.]

Are you claiming that the atrocities committed by communists weren't committed by communists? Or were they accidental and somehow not related to communism, even though they were committed by communists in the name of communism? Or are you somehow drawing a delineating line between what communists in the past did and what communists now do? Or are you making a distinction between political communism and ideological communism that precludes massive politically-motivated murders being included in the ideology, even though it was included in the politics as applied?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

but communists don't actually support such killings even if someone who people think (or even claimed) to be a communist...

So, for example, there was a guy at Charlottesville saying ~"I'm here because I believe in republican govt, killing jews, and the free market."

If you hire a communist he might go on break with other employees and talk about unionizing while complaining about the big company bureaucrats while he smokes a clove cigarette, but he's not going to try to plan killing jewish and black customers with others. [Exception?: if you hire someone who supports the North Korean dictatorship I have no idea what they'd do. depending on job requirements, it might be a bad idea and also, I am not sure they are communists.]

Are you claiming that the atrocities committed by communists weren't committed by communists?

Oi!

Buddhists are killing Muslims. Muslims killing Christians. Christians killing Muslims. However, their holy books don't speak out about how the faith is about slaughtering other people.

Communism is about... well... a utopian idea about as far fetched as libertarianism. Both are lousy economic ideas, but neither employ the idea of slaughtering millions of people, for any reason.

Nazism... well... they blamed Jews and all other sorts of "inferior" people for all of their problems, which then led to this 'solution' they masterminded. They murdered over 10,000,000 civilians for the purpose of ridding the world of Jews, gypsies, and other 'inferior' people.

Also, do we see anyone supporting the Khmer Rouge?

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

but communists don't actually support such killings even if someone who people think (or even claimed) to be a communist...

So, for example, there was a guy at Charlottesville saying ~"I'm here because I believe in republican govt, killing jews, and the free market."

If you hire a communist he might go on break with other employees and talk about unionizing while complaining about the big company bureaucrats while he smokes a clove cigarette, but he's not going to try to plan killing jewish and black customers with others. [Exception?: if you hire someone who supports the North Korean dictatorship I have no idea what they'd do. depending on job requirements, it might be a bad idea and also, I am not sure they are communists.]

Are you claiming that the atrocities committed by communists weren't committed by communists? Or were they accidental and somehow not related to communism, even though they were committed by communists in the name of communism? Or are you somehow drawing a delineating line between what communists in the past did and what communists now do? Or are you making a distinction between political communism and ideological communism that precludes massive politically-motivated murders being included in the ideology, even though it was included in the politics as applied?

I am agnostic on whether they were actual communists and I don't think it is anything but a red herring. As a practical matter to consider any person in the United States who says they are a communist isn't going to be a violent threat to customers because of their ideology. [If you disagree, state your reasoning]. On the other hand, a Nazi supports killing jews and blacks as part of their "ideology" and I put that in quotes because I really don't think it's an ideology but an insanity instead. Like, for example, if a serial killer is psychotic and so believes they are the Messiah and should kill little children to bring them to god, we don't call that a religion, we don't allow that under freedom of religion, but consider it insanity. It doesn't make sense to try to logically debate such serial killer but instead get them some kind of help and ensure they are in an environment to reduce risk to others, either prison or medicated, whatever. I am not arguing that ought to be the outcome for any Nazi, necessarily, but instead that in practice, there isn't a fundamental difference between a belief in genocide and a belief in running around killing children.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Are you claiming that the atrocities committed by communists weren't committed by communists? Or were they accidental and somehow not related to communism, even though they were committed by communists in the name of communism? Or are you somehow drawing a delineating line between what communists in the past did and what communists now do? Or are you making a distinction between political communism and ideological communism that precludes massive politically-motivated murders being included in the ideology, even though it was included in the politics as applied?

I am agnostic on whether they were actual communists and I don't think it is anything but a red herring. As a practical matter to consider any person in the United States who says they are a communist isn't going to be a violent threat to customers because of their ideology. On the other hand, a Nazi supports killing jews and blacks as part of their "ideology" and I put that in quotes because I really don't think it's an ideology but an insanity instead. Like, for example, if a serial killer is psychotic and so believes they are the Messiah and should kill little children to bring them to god, we don't call that a religion, we don't allow that under freedom of religion, but consider it insanity. It doesn't make sense to try to logically debate such serial killer but instead get them some kind of help and ensure they are in an environment to reduce risk to others, either prison or medicated, whatever.

Yeah, it isn't like people become Neo-Nazis because of their policies on health insurance.

 

[couch_sloth]

I'm late to this party, but I think that he should not have been fired. If his Nazi sympathies aren't affecting his job performance or his relations with other employees, then he deserves to stay on the job.

He wasn't fired because of job performance. He wasn't really even fired because of his employer's views of his beliefs. He was fired (as were his spouse and brother-in-law) because the owner of the restaurant received threats of violence and death if they weren't fired. His personal beliefs weren't affecting his job performance, given that until the article was published, his employer did not know he was a white nationalist.

That puts this into a pretty tricky spot for me. On the one hand, I strongly uphold each person's right to both belief and speech, regardless of how odious I find those beliefs to be. In this respect, I am opposed to him losing his job as a result of his beliefs, let alone the secondary effect on his family. On the other hand, I can definitely sympathize with the restaurant owner for his actions, as I would not expect the owner to suffer violence or threats in order to protect the rights of another person.

At the end of the day, to me, the blame lies with the mob mentality that it's acceptable to threaten others in order to squash their beliefs. That view is profoundly undemocratic.

The big mistake he made was: extensively expressing his views to a popular & widely distributed publication (the first article). He made himself a public figure, somewhat of a poster-child, for views he knew were very controversial and hated by most. Even if his bosses wanted to keep him, they were put into a serious bind because of the article.
He was foolish if he didn’t realize there might be some serious consequences because of the article.

 

[Elixir]

He was foolish if he didn’t realize there might be some serious consequences because of the article.

He was foolish for adopting the ideology in the first place. That more foolishness followed is hardly surprising.

 

[laughing dog]

Firing him would be on the basis of his views.

You are contradicting yourself. Earlier you wrote we don't know why he was fired.

For idiots it depends on the nature of the work. They can't do all jobs.

Ask your co-workers how they feel working with idiots.

 

[laughing dog]

Yet here you are, defending the right of Nazis and idiots to not be fired.

Or alternatively, defending the right of both employers and individuals to be free from threats of violence on the basis of their beliefs.

That is a separate issue. Duh.

 

[Underseer]

Never trust a commie, eh?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_Communist_regimes

but communists don't actually support such killings even if someone who people think (or even claimed) to be a communist...

So, for example, there was a guy at Charlottesville saying ~"I'm here because I believe in republican govt, killing jews, and the free market."

If you hire a communist he might go on break with other employees and talk about unionizing while complaining about the big company bureaucrats while he smokes a clove cigarette, but he's not going to try to plan killing jewish and black customers with others. [Exception?: if you hire someone who supports the North Korean dictatorship I have no idea what they'd do. depending on job requirements, it might be a bad idea and also, I am not sure they are communists.]

Are you claiming that the atrocities committed by communists weren't committed by communists? [...]

Communism is untenable because it's an even more extreme form of near-anarchy than libertarianism. Libertarians believe in a weak national government, communists believe in no national government. They don't want any political organization larger than city hall.

Communism was just an ideology used to whip up the masses in their propaganda. It was just a label used for branding. Like modern libertarians and libertarianism. Ayn Rand endorsed Jimmy Carter because she felt Reagan's stance on abortion marked him as a statist, yet most libertarians I know routinely vote for anti-abortion candidates more than pro-choice candidates.

 

[ronburgundy]

Are you claiming that the atrocities committed by communists weren't committed by communists?

Oi!

Buddhists are killing Muslims. Muslims killing Christians. Christians killing Muslims. However, their holy books don't speak out about how the faith is about slaughtering other people.

Do I need to quote the many places that their holy books explicitly command acts of murder and genocide as a requirements of the faith? Or that most holy books are at the very core all about hateful intolerance and scapegoating outgroups viewed as inferior, subhuman and worthy of eternal pain?

Communism is about... well... a utopian idea about as far fetched as libertarianism. Both are lousy economic ideas, but neither employ the idea of slaughtering millions of people, for any reason.

Do I need to quote how Marx explicitly argued that violent slaughter is the only possible way to bring about a communist revolution? Or that every attempt to implement one has entailed massive violence?

Nazism... well... they blamed Jews and all other sorts of "inferior" people for all of their problems, which then led to this 'solution' they masterminded. They murdered over 10,000,000 civilians for the purpose of ridding the world of Jews, gypsies, and other 'inferior' people.

The difference is not that these religions and communism are not inherently tied to violence like Naziism. People that actually sincerely accept these ideologies are dangerous and not to be trusted, just like Nazis. The difference is that most people in the US who "sympathize" with those other ideologies are being disingenuous and just use the label because it serves some purpose for them. Thus, they don't actually hold those hateful views.
However, Naziism is so pervasively reviled by everyone but those who actually does hold white supremacist views, that only people who actually hold such views would identify with them. Thus, if someone says they relate to Nazis, you should be nervous, but if they
say they relate to Christianity or Communism, they probably don't and are just idiots who don't even know what those ideologies entail.