3 ms·

For each of the questions you have listed, there is opposite viewpoints of some (questionable) legitimacy: White supremacists would argue that it is multicultu

For each of the questions you have listed, there is opposite viewpoints of some (questionable) legitimacy: White supremacists would argue that it is multiculturalists who seek the abolition of the white race through introduction of millions of high birth rate other demographics into white countries. Pro-conversion therapy anti gay people would argue they are saving the individuals from mental problems, social difficulties, and other negative side effects of what they believe is a consciously modifiable behaviour. "Racists" and "sexists" would argue that being aware of mean average behavioural differences in different demographics is not a negative thing. However invalid these arguments may, or may not, be, it is not our job to attempt to generalise our expertise and judge anyone who holds a differing view. Simple statistics says that there is at least one or two major issues which you are extremely passionate about, but simply mistaken. Same for me, same for anyone else. That does not matter. As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant. People should be judged by their individual actions within a given 'organism'/community/company/etc, not their viewpoints on tangentially related subjects shared with others in other communities. Your logic is exactly what led to the exclusion of gays, blacks, communists, non christians, and other groups, in the 1950s and before. You risk going so far in the other direction that you become exactly what you opposed.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago
All of your given examples are false equivalencies, as they assume that the desire to control the disenfranchised groups is the same as the real harm done to the disenfranchised group as a result of being controlled. A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them. " As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant." I am arguing that, in fact, opinions supporting the disenfranchisement of minorities affects the behavior of a specific community. Please see my previous example that someone who believes black people are inherently violent is more likely to view a black coworker asserting that a technical spec is stupid differently than a white coworker doing the same. Also see my previous example that a person who believes women are less capable in code is more likely to overlook achievements of their women coworkers. I don't understand what you mean by my logic excluded other groups, and then you lumped in inherent traits (race, sexuality) with beliefs about how governments should form (communism). Race, sexuality, and gender are not leanings or passions. They are things that people cannot change about themselves, things that they cannot avoid the brunt of any oppressive belief or behavior regarding.
- dsacco 9y ago
  > A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them. I think your claim here has a high likelihood of inviting a very unproductive (and potentially offensive) debate. I'm going to try to counter it in a different way while explicitly acknowledging this fact. I think your focus in this claim is on the wrong subject. I don't think the parent's argument relies on your claim about the capability of changing beliefs versus sexual orientation being false. From my perspective, people have the right to personal beliefs which can be considered repulsive. People do not have the right to engage in violent opposition or oppression. I think that, if an individual is not actively campaigning for violence against another group, their personal beliefs about that group should be an inalienable right, no matter how ugly or wrong we think they are. If they are making people uncomfortable in the office, this becomes an issue of professional conduct, not one of personal beliefs. Frankly, I would consider virtually all political discussion one way or the other to be inappropriate in an office setting, and an unfortunate practice which only persists because generally only the opinions politically expedient for the organization are actually expressed. If we step back from the problem of gay marriage and abstract this to opposing beliefs, it becomes very difficult to allow some beliefs and disallow others while retaining fairness and real diversity of opinion. We can stop people from engaging in violence against others or from using the office to discriminate against others. But we cannot cultivate an environment that filters out all the Wrong opinions while allowing all the Right opinions.
xwvvvvwx 9y ago
As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant. The point is that people's opinions always affect their behaviour (very often unconsciously).
- tux1968 9y ago
  So what? Judge people on their behavior and results at work, not away from it.

SolaceQuantum 9y ago

All of your given examples are false equivalencies, as they assume that the desire to control the disenfranchised groups is the same as the real harm done to the disenfranchised group as a result of being controlled. A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them. " As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant." I am arguing that, in fact, opinions supporting the disenfranchisement of minorities affects the behavior of a specific community. Please see my previous example that someone who believes black people are inherently violent is more likely to view a black coworker asserting that a technical spec is stupid differently than a white coworker doing the same. Also see my previous example that a person who believes women are less capable in code is more likely to overlook achievements of their women coworkers. I don't understand what you mean by my logic excluded other groups, and then you lumped in inherent traits (race, sexuality) with beliefs about how governments should form (communism). Race, sexuality, and gender are not leanings or passions. They are things that people cannot change about themselves, things that they cannot avoid the brunt of any oppressive belief or behavior regarding.

dsacco 9y ago
> A person can change beliefs about how you should treat gay people. A gay person cannot change their homosexuality to accommodate anti-gay people, and trying actively harms them. I think your claim here has a high likelihood of inviting a very unproductive (and potentially offensive) debate. I'm going to try to counter it in a different way while explicitly acknowledging this fact. I think your focus in this claim is on the wrong subject. I don't think the parent's argument relies on your claim about the capability of changing beliefs versus sexual orientation being false. From my perspective, people have the right to personal beliefs which can be considered repulsive. People do not have the right to engage in violent opposition or oppression. I think that, if an individual is not actively campaigning for violence against another group, their personal beliefs about that group should be an inalienable right, no matter how ugly or wrong we think they are. If they are making people uncomfortable in the office, this becomes an issue of professional conduct, not one of personal beliefs. Frankly, I would consider virtually all political discussion one way or the other to be inappropriate in an office setting, and an unfortunate practice which only persists because generally only the opinions politically expedient for the organization are actually expressed. If we step back from the problem of gay marriage and abstract this to opposing beliefs, it becomes very difficult to allow some beliefs and disallow others while retaining fairness and real diversity of opinion. We can stop people from engaging in violence against others or from using the office to discriminate against others. But we cannot cultivate an environment that filters out all the Wrong opinions while allowing all the Right opinions.

xwvvvvwx 9y ago

As long as my opinions do not measurably affect my behaviour within a specific community, then it is not relevant. The point is that people's opinions always affect their behaviour (very often unconsciously).

tux1968 9y ago
So what? Judge people on their behavior and results at work, not away from it.