5 ms·

I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working environment, of course. I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking p

by drostie 10y ago

I was talking in particular about the use of profanity in a working environment, of course. I do not know what you are reading into those emails but speaking purely objectively, there is remarkably little content in them to go off of. It could potentially have to do with Bernie Sanders in the Kentucky and West Virginia primaries (which were in early May), but that seems somewhat unlikely given the timestamps -- the West Virginia primary was only 5 days after the email was sent, which is almost no time for one to ask the question, get whatever answer, and launch a smear campaign. It could also be not about Sanders at all--WVA is an odd way to refer to West Virginia when WV will work as well, and the name "Sanders" doesn't appear anywhere in the emails themselves. Even if it's about Sanders, the email doesn't even say whether the guy is rooting for or against Sanders: it could just as easily be "Hey, I heard this rumor that Sanders is an atheist, can we get someone to ask him so that he can squash that rumor like a bug?" It doesn't strike me as a "civil rights violation" to ask about someone's religious views. I mean, maybe the US people not voting for politicians based on their religious affiliation is a larger civil rights violation that you fear will be triggered if this question is asked, but that seems like several steps away from a sure thing, since it's quite possible that Bernie will play a different political card.

tanderson92 10y ago
You cannot possibly be serious. 1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny it? I think you protest too much. 2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question against Sanders. Your hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote the objectionable e-mail: > It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist. That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt him in KY and WVA (by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA). It is also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by". 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical.
- kbenson 10y ago
  > 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical. Are you talking about political agents being unethical (to which I say, "duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different things. People have a right to vote for a candidate as they see fit, based on all the information they have at their disposal. That's a core tenet of democracy. While I would prefer people not use religious views of candidates in most cases, there are cases where I would definitely like to know (for example, if the candidate believes the world will end within the year, I think that's probably the most relevant information in a presidential candidate you can know). While self serving, I can't see the action as purely negative, as it would be increasing true information to the public (as opposed to attack ads that insinuate unverified information).
  - tanderson92 10y ago
    I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.
    - kbenson 10y ago
      While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think they do, such as inform as to the character of the person, the personality of the person, how they deal with conflict, etc, then it's not. How to we objectively differentiate between things that matter and things that don't?
      - 10y ago

by drostie 10y ago

tanderson92 10y ago

You cannot possibly be serious. 1) The emails refer to two upcoming primaries, which occurred in close temporal and spatial proximity to each other. Literally no other campaign in the nation is in two states. It is hard to imagine any other figure in the nation that that refers to other than Bernie Sanders. I didn't mention Bernie Sanders in my reply, so why did you think it was about Bernie and then attempt to deny it? I think you protest too much. 2) The email is clearly suggesting to use the question against Sanders. Your hypothetical suggestion is plainly unsupported by the facts. Let me just quote the objectionable e-mail: > It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist. That is clearly saying that knowledge that Sanders is an atheist would hurt him in KY and WVA (by the way: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WVA). It is also implying that someone should directly ask him so he can't "skate by". 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical.

kbenson 10y ago
> 3) civil service jobs are not supposed to involve discrimination based on religious preferences and attempts to exploit bigotry by national political organizations is deeply unethical. Are you talking about political agents being unethical (to which I say, "duh"), or are we talking about what you previously stated, "conspiring to commit a civil rights violation, or exploit one" ? Those are very different things. People have a right to vote for a candidate as they see fit, based on all the information they have at their disposal. That's a core tenet of democracy. While I would prefer people not use religious views of candidates in most cases, there are cases where I would definitely like to know (for example, if the candidate believes the world will end within the year, I think that's probably the most relevant information in a presidential candidate you can know). While self serving, I can't see the action as purely negative, as it would be increasing true information to the public (as opposed to attack ads that insinuate unverified information).
- tanderson92 10y ago
  I would say that national political organizations conspiring to exploit bigotry at the ballot box (which you correctly note is allowed) is a civil rights violation. It's the actions of the formal organization to promote bigotry vs the actual voters themselves acting as they see fit.
  - kbenson 10y ago
    While I agree in this case it's probably bigotry they would be exploiting, how do we differentiate that from an informed view of how someone's thoughts on religion (or birth control, or the belief in evolution, or how to deal with Israeli/Palestinian relations, or trade agreements) might translate into other areas of office? If you think they don't matter, it's bigotry. If you think they do, such as inform as to the character of the person, the personality of the person, how they deal with conflict, etc, then it's not. How to we objectively differentiate between things that matter and things that don't?
    - 10y ago