4 ms·

I don't want to work with a nazi, or with a racist, or with a fundamentalist zealot. I believe it's absolutely okay to get rid of these people in a company, as

by gkya 10y ago

I don't want to work with a nazi, or with a racist, or with a fundamentalist zealot. I believe it's absolutely okay to get rid of these people in a company, as work is a social environment, no matter the level of professionalism. And also they may cause harm to the organisations they're part of.

logmeout 10y ago
> I believe it's absolutely okay to get rid of these people in a company Once you start thinking like that, it becomes easy to find any way to rationalize firing anyone for any reason.
- enraged_camel 10y ago
  Eh, I don't know. I think Nazis are categorically and fundamentally different than, say, anti-vaxxers. I mean, if you don't want to vaccinate your child, fine. I don't agree with it, but I can live with it. If you identify with a group that literally burned people in ovens though? Yeah, I can't live with that, sorry.
  - huehehue 10y ago
    Interesting you compare those two groups where, in the 21st century, an anti-vaxxer is more likely to be responsible for causing a death.
    - enraged_camel 10y ago
      That's a good point. Yeah, don't get me wrong: not vaccinating your child is a very shitty decision, and dangerous both for the child and other children they interact with. Herd immunity and all that. But let's be fair: one major difference between anti-vaxxers and Nazis is that anti-vaxxers are simply misguided and ignorant. The Nazis on the other hand knew exactly what they were doing (exterminating people) and even developed fucked up methodologies for doing it more efficiently. So I stand by my previous assertion that the two groups are categorically and fundamentally different.
  - SRSposter 10y ago
    >If you identify with a group that literally burned people in ovens though? Many nazis dont
- anigbrowl 10y ago
  Lots of places have 'at will' employment conditions which mean you can in fact be fired for any reason whatsoever. Oddly enough this seems to be more popular in conservative jurisdictions.
base698 10y ago
Are they really nazis and zealots, or were they labeled as such? How would you discus these views with the person and change their mind if you label them as unworthy of your employer. Free speech acts as Natural selection for ideas. Bad ideas never get checked and fester in filter bubbles if you don't let people express themselves openly.
- Retra 10y ago
  How does free speech act as natural selection if there's no penalty for 'bad' speech?
  - mreiland 10y ago
    Why are you thinking about free speech in terms of things that need to be penalized (or rewarded)? I encourage everyone to avoid answering that question, it presupposes that the mindset that resulted in such a question is valid on some level and worthy of engagement.
    - Retra 10y ago
      I'm talking about natural selection. You can't have natural selection without the 'selection' part.
      - VLM 10y ago
        More or less agreed so far. Even worse, its also missing the "natural" component. You can judge on consistency by using some empathy and substituting in Jews, progressives, and Muslims to select some arbitrary left wing groups as opposed to the right wing groups initially named. For people with empathy (and a bit of wisdom) regardless of which side they're on, they can see that its a fundamentally immoral method of argument, regardless of who is picked as today's trendy victim of the sophistry. How can something moral and worthy rely specifically on not using empathy? The response to civilization getting punched in the face by a right fist a century ago should be something like "turn the other cheek" not having bad guys propose "punch back left handed, maybe harder and using computers this time". You're not going to win with a strategy that boils down to being nazis, but more specifically left wing nazis so that means we're not only OK but we're great because I'm sure the other side shares our views that they're deplorable and if we just call them racists or bigots one more time then they'll finally start voting for us. That was quite an empathy fail in the recent election strategy. We tried left wing authoritarianism last century a couple times and it failed every time. Oddly enough it turns out people hate being genocided regardless of being told its to help the left or the right. Theoretically and pragmatically WRT empathy, mislabeling "natural" is just a bad strategy, gonna fail. Another way its not "natural" is confusing groupthink with observing actual nature or wisdom. For example, today left wing progressive views are extremely popular, near universal in some subgroups echo chambers, in the 30s in Germany somewhat further right views were more popular. Popularity contest results are very interesting but has nothing to do with morality and ethics and right and wrong and the correct way to live a good life. Is the truth of the world that the Earth is flat or round? Did the earth change shape before and after Columbus or just the groupthink? Is the logically efficient and dependable way to determine the result of 2 + 2, to vote on it? In summary don't confuse merely measuring groupthink vs observations and analysis of actual "nature". So not bad, given a two word phrase "natural selection" its gotten at least three gaping philosophical holes shot thru it.

by gkya 10y ago

logmeout 10y ago

> I believe it's absolutely okay to get rid of these people in a company Once you start thinking like that, it becomes easy to find any way to rationalize firing anyone for any reason.

enraged_camel 10y ago
Eh, I don't know. I think Nazis are categorically and fundamentally different than, say, anti-vaxxers. I mean, if you don't want to vaccinate your child, fine. I don't agree with it, but I can live with it. If you identify with a group that literally burned people in ovens though? Yeah, I can't live with that, sorry.
- huehehue 10y ago
  Interesting you compare those two groups where, in the 21st century, an anti-vaxxer is more likely to be responsible for causing a death.
  - enraged_camel 10y ago
    That's a good point. Yeah, don't get me wrong: not vaccinating your child is a very shitty decision, and dangerous both for the child and other children they interact with. Herd immunity and all that. But let's be fair: one major difference between anti-vaxxers and Nazis is that anti-vaxxers are simply misguided and ignorant. The Nazis on the other hand knew exactly what they were doing (exterminating people) and even developed fucked up methodologies for doing it more efficiently. So I stand by my previous assertion that the two groups are categorically and fundamentally different.
- SRSposter 10y ago
  >If you identify with a group that literally burned people in ovens though? Many nazis dont
anigbrowl 10y ago
Lots of places have 'at will' employment conditions which mean you can in fact be fired for any reason whatsoever. Oddly enough this seems to be more popular in conservative jurisdictions.

base698 10y ago

Are they really nazis and zealots, or were they labeled as such? How would you discus these views with the person and change their mind if you label them as unworthy of your employer. Free speech acts as Natural selection for ideas. Bad ideas never get checked and fester in filter bubbles if you don't let people express themselves openly.

Retra 10y ago
How does free speech act as natural selection if there's no penalty for 'bad' speech?
- mreiland 10y ago
  Why are you thinking about free speech in terms of things that need to be penalized (or rewarded)? I encourage everyone to avoid answering that question, it presupposes that the mindset that resulted in such a question is valid on some level and worthy of engagement.
  - Retra 10y ago
    I'm talking about natural selection. You can't have natural selection without the 'selection' part.
    - VLM 10y ago
      More or less agreed so far. Even worse, its also missing the "natural" component. You can judge on consistency by using some empathy and substituting in Jews, progressives, and Muslims to select some arbitrary left wing groups as opposed to the right wing groups initially named. For people with empathy (and a bit of wisdom) regardless of which side they're on, they can see that its a fundamentally immoral method of argument, regardless of who is picked as today's trendy victim of the sophistry. How can something moral and worthy rely specifically on not using empathy? The response to civilization getting punched in the face by a right fist a century ago should be something like "turn the other cheek" not having bad guys propose "punch back left handed, maybe harder and using computers this time". You're not going to win with a strategy that boils down to being nazis, but more specifically left wing nazis so that means we're not only OK but we're great because I'm sure the other side shares our views that they're deplorable and if we just call them racists or bigots one more time then they'll finally start voting for us. That was quite an empathy fail in the recent election strategy. We tried left wing authoritarianism last century a couple times and it failed every time. Oddly enough it turns out people hate being genocided regardless of being told its to help the left or the right. Theoretically and pragmatically WRT empathy, mislabeling "natural" is just a bad strategy, gonna fail. Another way its not "natural" is confusing groupthink with observing actual nature or wisdom. For example, today left wing progressive views are extremely popular, near universal in some subgroups echo chambers, in the 30s in Germany somewhat further right views were more popular. Popularity contest results are very interesting but has nothing to do with morality and ethics and right and wrong and the correct way to live a good life. Is the truth of the world that the Earth is flat or round? Did the earth change shape before and after Columbus or just the groupthink? Is the logically efficient and dependable way to determine the result of 2 + 2, to vote on it? In summary don't confuse merely measuring groupthink vs observations and analysis of actual "nature". So not bad, given a two word phrase "natural selection" its gotten at least three gaping philosophical holes shot thru it.