5 ms·

> If I were your employer, I would definitely consider firing you because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of racism, sexism, x

> If I were your employer, I would definitely consider firing you because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia and political violence. But where does that end? You could use that against line of reasoning against literally any political topic. You could just as easily say, "I would definitely consider firing you for being pro-choice, because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of murder". or "I would consider firing you for being Christian, because I do not believe my company should employ people who are tolerant of discrimination, judgement, and torture."

selestify 10y ago
Being Christian does not imply being tolerant of tolerant of discrimination, judgement, and torture. Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for.
- Cookingboy 10y ago
  >Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for It means at least you put other things at higher priority than discrimination, torture, and promotion of violence and hatred and you are willing to at least ignore those. In my eyes, that's simply not acceptable. We aren't talking about economical policies or debate on tax laws here, we are talking about basic human decency.
  - ElEmEnOhP 10y ago
    How is that any different than Clinton? She's talked about 'droning' people who oppose her viewpoints.
    - Cookingboy 10y ago
      Please show me verified proof where she publicly threatened violence or jail time or like you claimed, drone strike against her political opponents (they definitely oppose her viewpoints).
      - alain_gilbert 10y ago
        https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+guy https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
  - s_m_t 10y ago
    But being the secretary of state of the administration that assassinates US citizens without trial (including a 16 year old US citizen) and laughing on television about a world leader being killed and sodomized with knives by a mob on television is acceptable? We are all complicit in this madness. You should fire everyone and then fire yourself.
    - Cookingboy 10y ago
      Clinton did not order nor promote sodomizing a "world leader" (a brutal dictator, you made it sound like he's an elected leader from a democracy or something). The killing of the U.S. national without trial was done due to such individual's action. There was no condemnation of violence toward a large group of people due to racism or sexism. The world is obviously not perfect, but you can't use that as the basis of argument for "everything and everyone is just as bad as each other and things cannot possibly be worse".
      - s_m_t 10y ago
        No, she just helped destabilize the country until he was killed and sodomized. And then laughed about it, on television. Surely this was the administrations intention all along. Of course they didn't expect him to be sodomized but as long as he died one way or another I really doubt they cared. Of course, now Libya is still embroiled in civil war. The point is that there are legitimate reasons to support Trump over Hillary that don't involve someone being a racist, sexist, bigot. The world definitely isn't perfect and we have two (major) candidates to choose from that make a lot of reasonable people on both 'sides' existentially concerned about the future of the republic. I agree with your concerns about Trump. I just think Hillary is even scarier, especially because a lot of the type of people who would protest and politically mobilize against the actions I think she might take support her.
  - DougN7 10y ago
    > t means at least you put other things at higher priority than discrimination, torture, and promotion of violence and hatred and you are willing to at least ignore those. Oh please... You're not being intellectually honest.
- Hannan 10y ago
  As someone who leans heavily Democrat, I disagree. There are many Trump "supporters" who just extremely dislike/disagree with Clinton. That doesn't mean they back "all he stands for" much as I don't personally back the separate email server, HRC's coziness with Wall Street, etc. We have a two party system. Support doesn't indicate 100% alignment.
- eberkund 10y ago
  >Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for. No it doesn't, since when does supporting a particular political candidate mean that you think they are the epitome of perfection? It simply means that you believe said candidate to be marginally better on the issues you care about, than the next most likely candidate to win the election.
- Ar-Curunir 10y ago
  Surprisingly, it does not mean that; it means that you prefer some of Trump's policies (whatever those might be) to Hillary's corresponding policies.
- obstacle1 10y ago
  I'm fascinated by the histories of rigidly black-and-white, mentally disadvantaged thinkers. How do they arrive at their bizarre positions? Not even from an immediate train of logic perspective, but from a life perspective. Some chain of events led to that bizarre, defective brain state which produces such strange, incoherent thoughts; what events constituted that chain? Could you tell us a bit about where you're from, how you grew up, whether or not you attended school, etc.? I think a little insight could help us all to be more tolerant of those with limited reasoning abilities.
  - Turing_Machine 10y ago
    Eric Hoffer wrote a classic book about the phenomenon. It's called The True Believer and is a short but thoroughly compelling read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
  - sctb 10y ago
    We don't attack other users like this on Hacker News, no matter how politely you package it up.
Cookingboy 10y ago
>But where does that end? You could use that against line of reasoning against literally any political topic. So according to you all points of view and agenda should be tolerated just because the line is blurry? In practice the line has to be drawn somewhere. No other politicians I can think of in a Western Democracy actively and explicitly encourages hatred, racism, sexism and violence in the same way Donald Trump does. Let me be clear, I do believe in everyone's right to first amendment. They should be able to exercise free speech without fear of government prosecution (as long as it doesn't violate Federal laws governing Hate Speeches). But I also believe in any private party's right to completely disassociate and distance themselves from Mr.Trump and his supporters, including their employers.
- stale2002 10y ago
  You are wrong about the law. "But I also believe in any private party's right to completely disassociate and distance themselves from Mr.Trump and his supporters, including their employers." This is illegal. Highly illegal.
  - Cookingboy 10y ago
    Nope, not illegal at all. It's completely ok to fire someone over outrageous or offensive remarks or hate speech. Billy Bush was literally just fired by NBC over the Trump tape. You can definitely be fired for openly promoting racism, sexism or violence, those are not protected by US labor laws. First Amendment does not protect against private party actions either, they only ensure that the government cannot prosecute you.
    - stale2002 10y ago
      Oregon http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.665 http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.665 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mcducknbaos0ah55x204uumg))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-168-931 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mcducknbaos0ah55x204uumg))/... California The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. For further information, contact Holland & Knight lawyers Linda Illinois An employer is not permitted to maintain a record of employees’ off-the-job political activities. 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. §40/9. For further information, contact Holland & Knight attorney Louisiana State law expressly prohibits any employer policy which forbids or prevents employees from "engaging or participating in politics" or from becoming a candidate, and any policy that "controls or directs [employees'] political activities." Employers also are prohibited from threatening to discharge employees who "support or become affiliated with any particular political fashion or organization, or participate in political activities of any nature or character." Significantly, Louisiana law permits imprisonment for violations! Massachusetts Employers are prohibited from attempting to influence an employee to give or withhold an employee's vote or an employee's political contribution. Employers are also prohibited from taking an adverse employment action against an employee — or rewarding an employee through higher wages or favorable employment terms — because of the giving or withholding of a vote or a political contribution New Jersey State law prohibits employers from attempting to influence employees to vote or to not vote or to vote/not vote for any particular candidate, and from requiring workers to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or communicating about the employer's opinions about political matters (including party affiliations). And more!!! https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Hey-Take-It-Outside-Politics-in-the-Workplace-10-01-2011/ https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Hey-Take-It-Outside-Polit...

selestify 10y ago

Being Christian does not imply being tolerant of tolerant of discrimination, judgement, and torture. Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for.

Cookingboy 10y ago
>Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for It means at least you put other things at higher priority than discrimination, torture, and promotion of violence and hatred and you are willing to at least ignore those. In my eyes, that's simply not acceptable. We aren't talking about economical policies or debate on tax laws here, we are talking about basic human decency.
- ElEmEnOhP 10y ago
  How is that any different than Clinton? She's talked about 'droning' people who oppose her viewpoints.
  - Cookingboy 10y ago
    Please show me verified proof where she publicly threatened violence or jail time or like you claimed, drone strike against her political opponents (they definitely oppose her viewpoints).
    - alain_gilbert 10y ago
      https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=can%27t+we+just+drone+this+guy https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&e...
- s_m_t 10y ago
  But being the secretary of state of the administration that assassinates US citizens without trial (including a 16 year old US citizen) and laughing on television about a world leader being killed and sodomized with knives by a mob on television is acceptable? We are all complicit in this madness. You should fire everyone and then fire yourself.
  - Cookingboy 10y ago
    Clinton did not order nor promote sodomizing a "world leader" (a brutal dictator, you made it sound like he's an elected leader from a democracy or something). The killing of the U.S. national without trial was done due to such individual's action. There was no condemnation of violence toward a large group of people due to racism or sexism. The world is obviously not perfect, but you can't use that as the basis of argument for "everything and everyone is just as bad as each other and things cannot possibly be worse".
    - s_m_t 10y ago
      No, she just helped destabilize the country until he was killed and sodomized. And then laughed about it, on television. Surely this was the administrations intention all along. Of course they didn't expect him to be sodomized but as long as he died one way or another I really doubt they cared. Of course, now Libya is still embroiled in civil war. The point is that there are legitimate reasons to support Trump over Hillary that don't involve someone being a racist, sexist, bigot. The world definitely isn't perfect and we have two (major) candidates to choose from that make a lot of reasonable people on both 'sides' existentially concerned about the future of the republic. I agree with your concerns about Trump. I just think Hillary is even scarier, especially because a lot of the type of people who would protest and politically mobilize against the actions I think she might take support her.
- DougN7 10y ago
  > t means at least you put other things at higher priority than discrimination, torture, and promotion of violence and hatred and you are willing to at least ignore those. Oh please... You're not being intellectually honest.
Hannan 10y ago
As someone who leans heavily Democrat, I disagree. There are many Trump "supporters" who just extremely dislike/disagree with Clinton. That doesn't mean they back "all he stands for" much as I don't personally back the separate email server, HRC's coziness with Wall Street, etc. We have a two party system. Support doesn't indicate 100% alignment.
eberkund 10y ago
>Being a Trump supporter does mean giving support to Trump and all he stands for. No it doesn't, since when does supporting a particular political candidate mean that you think they are the epitome of perfection? It simply means that you believe said candidate to be marginally better on the issues you care about, than the next most likely candidate to win the election.
Ar-Curunir 10y ago
Surprisingly, it does not mean that; it means that you prefer some of Trump's policies (whatever those might be) to Hillary's corresponding policies.
obstacle1 10y ago
I'm fascinated by the histories of rigidly black-and-white, mentally disadvantaged thinkers. How do they arrive at their bizarre positions? Not even from an immediate train of logic perspective, but from a life perspective. Some chain of events led to that bizarre, defective brain state which produces such strange, incoherent thoughts; what events constituted that chain? Could you tell us a bit about where you're from, how you grew up, whether or not you attended school, etc.? I think a little insight could help us all to be more tolerant of those with limited reasoning abilities.
- Turing_Machine 10y ago
  Eric Hoffer wrote a classic book about the phenomenon. It's called The True Believer and is a short but thoroughly compelling read. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_True_Believer
- sctb 10y ago
  We don't attack other users like this on Hacker News, no matter how politely you package it up.

Cookingboy 10y ago

>But where does that end? You could use that against line of reasoning against literally any political topic. So according to you all points of view and agenda should be tolerated just because the line is blurry? In practice the line has to be drawn somewhere. No other politicians I can think of in a Western Democracy actively and explicitly encourages hatred, racism, sexism and violence in the same way Donald Trump does. Let me be clear, I do believe in everyone's right to first amendment. They should be able to exercise free speech without fear of government prosecution (as long as it doesn't violate Federal laws governing Hate Speeches). But I also believe in any private party's right to completely disassociate and distance themselves from Mr.Trump and his supporters, including their employers.

stale2002 10y ago
You are wrong about the law. "But I also believe in any private party's right to completely disassociate and distance themselves from Mr.Trump and his supporters, including their employers." This is illegal. Highly illegal.
- Cookingboy 10y ago
  Nope, not illegal at all. It's completely ok to fire someone over outrageous or offensive remarks or hate speech. Billy Bush was literally just fired by NBC over the Trump tape. You can definitely be fired for openly promoting racism, sexism or violence, those are not protected by US labor laws. First Amendment does not protect against private party actions either, they only ensure that the government cannot prosecute you.
  - stale2002 10y ago
    Oregon http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.665 http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/260.665 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mcducknbaos0ah55x204uumg))/mileg.aspx?page=getObject&objectname=mcl-168-931 http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(mcducknbaos0ah55x204uumg))/... California The California Labor Code prohibits any employer policy: (1) limiting workers' participation in politics; (2) barring employees from becoming candidates for public office; (3) requiring workers to adhere to any particular political action/activity; or (4) "controlling or directing ... political activities or affiliations of employees." California law also prohibits adverse action against employees because of "lawful conduct occurring during nonworking hours away from the employer's premises." Given the apparent statutory/regulatory breadth of "political activity," California employers must be particularly careful in drafting policies. For further information, contact Holland & Knight lawyers Linda Illinois An employer is not permitted to maintain a record of employees’ off-the-job political activities. 820 Ill. Comp. Stat. §40/9. For further information, contact Holland & Knight attorney Louisiana State law expressly prohibits any employer policy which forbids or prevents employees from "engaging or participating in politics" or from becoming a candidate, and any policy that "controls or directs [employees'] political activities." Employers also are prohibited from threatening to discharge employees who "support or become affiliated with any particular political fashion or organization, or participate in political activities of any nature or character." Significantly, Louisiana law permits imprisonment for violations! Massachusetts Employers are prohibited from attempting to influence an employee to give or withhold an employee's vote or an employee's political contribution. Employers are also prohibited from taking an adverse employment action against an employee — or rewarding an employee through higher wages or favorable employment terms — because of the giving or withholding of a vote or a political contribution New Jersey State law prohibits employers from attempting to influence employees to vote or to not vote or to vote/not vote for any particular candidate, and from requiring workers to attend an employer-sponsored meeting or communicating about the employer's opinions about political matters (including party affiliations). And more!!! https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Hey-Take-It-Outside-Politics-in-the-Workplace-10-01-2011/ https://www.hklaw.com/publications/Hey-Take-It-Outside-Polit...