6 ms·

> Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Are you against this in pri

by baddox 6y ago

> Holy shit. Am I reading this right? 53% of Americans would support firing someone based on a donation to a presidential campaign? Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies and actions are (by your own definition of "bad")? Or do you just think that, right now, no major candidate is "bad enough" that you would advocate firing someone for supporting that candidate?

Udik 6y ago
> Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies are Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political choice?
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  So even if someone is a literal neo-Nazi who supports killing all the Jews, imprisoning gay people, and enslaving black people, donating to such a person's candidacy isn't disqualifying in terms of the basic character one might expect (or at least hope for) of someone leading a company? I don't see how an endorsement of a vile racist couldn't be seen as disqualifying for positions of authority.
  - Udik 6y ago
    I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      Because of freedom of speech? The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal, lest it always turn out that only the speech the benefits the powers that be, be allowed to remains standing. Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"?
      - PeterisP 6y ago
        If you think that the opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power, vote against that candidate. But if enough others vote for that candidate, then that's a strong democratic signal that this opinion reflects many people's will and needs consideration and representation. In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions, no matter how much you dislike these opinions (it's plausible that they dislike your opinions just as much) and you should not get a veto to say that their opinions don't belong to someone in a position of power but your opinion can do so; people have the right to have their opinions represented in politics. Fringe opinions deserve only trivial representation and that's what they get, but this article is about various mainstream opinions held by as much as 62% of people, it's obvious that most of these opinions should be allowed to belong to someone in a position of power.
        baddox 6y ago
        > In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions I think that this is not true and that society and individuals can and should reserve the right to suppress intolerant ideologies.
        PeterisP 6y ago
        What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; e.g. Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. You won't succeed in claims that your ideology is special and deserves protection that the opponents' ideology does not - that hypocrisy simply won't be accepted by everyone who doesn't already share your ideology. Your enemies have similar motivations as you do, they consider your political agenda as harmful and dangerous to society where it would be morally justified to ensure that the politions of power are cleansed from (for example) the liberal agenda. A line in the sand of "we won't harass people because of their political views" generally works as protection against oppression, even if you have to include oppressive political views as well in that basket. In essence, the choice in this matter is simply about escalation or living side by side with your political enemies by agreeing to specify where "the battlefield" is - IMHO, ideally, limited to debates and votes by elected representatives and discourse in media and social circles. If it's escalated to "let's fight our enemies" in the field of employment or providing services then it's not as bad as street fights (which were used in political 'discourse' a hundred years ago) but still going to lead to a lot of people harmed on both sides.
- ghaff 6y ago
  There are a lot of very fringe political parties; getting on the ballot in at least a few states isn't that big a hurdle. Without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, if you're a CEO (and the context of the question was around business executives) is it necessarily unreasonable if a board decides that their CEO's support for some controversial fringe presidential candidate is a distraction? (This seems less clear with a rank and file worker but they're also more expendable if something is becoming an internal controversy.)
  - Udik 6y ago
    I understand that fringe political ideas can have a negative impact on the personal relationships in a work environment, especially for people in prominent roles. However I guess the keyword is can. Tolerance should be exercised from all sides and political ideas should not be a motivation in and by themselves. However it's also true that the CEO of a company is in some cases him/herself a political figure, so I guess it depends on the case.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      >However it's also true that the CEO of a company is in some cases him/herself a political figure That's certainly the case. And, at some level, a political figure doesn't get to have a private life beyond some constraints. In principle, this doesn't apply to lower-level employees--although in many cases those employees are public faces to the company as well. And companies will much more quickly dismiss individuals who become a headache for whatever reason than they will their CEO.
    - baddox 6y ago
      What is your response to the paradox of tolerance?
      - Udik 6y ago
        That the solution to it- becoming intolerant towards intolerance- is an option that needs to be regulated. The default of society should be tolerance, and very well defined limits should be put on it, if the need arises. If any actor in society is free to decide what it is fine to to be intolerant to, then you have effectively given people license to be intolerant. Which is what is happening now. So, to be clear: intolerance should be frowned upon by default. The community can decide to be intolerant towards some things, but those things must be agreed, shared and made clear once and for all. And at that point, that agreed-upon intolerance becomes a law and can be actually enforced by the state itself.
ianhorn 6y ago
I think my discomfort with the idea comes from my inability to know where to draw the line. If I think a person should be fired for a 2020 Trump donation in 2020, why would I think that person shouldn't be fired for a 2019 donation or a 2018 one? I don't think a donation should make someone completely unemployable, so I have trouble reconciling "should be fired from whatever their current job is for a thing they did in the last few years" with "shouldn't be excluded for a few years from the job market." That and imagining it the other way around. I'm adamantly pro-choice and have donated to orgs supporting this. From the right wing perspective, I support literal murder. What better justification than that to fire me? The only reason I can think that I shouldn't be fired for being pro-choice is that, well, my worldview is the right one.
- baddox 6y ago
  It doesn't strike me as much harder than drawing the line for more common reasons to fire someone, like incompetence or inappropriate workplace activity. Those are also continuums, and it's certainly not easy to know where to draw the line, and reasonable people will disagree about where to draw the line in each specific case. But we don't throw up our hands and say you can never be allowed to fire anyone for those reasons. It seems like many people think that "political" actions should enjoy a special protection and that no such actions should ever draw any criticism or consequences. The same attitude is common for actions labelled as "religious." I reject that special status.
goatlover 6y ago
> Are you against this in principle, Yep and for the same reason free speech is protected. Because nobody can be trusted with being the arbiter of correct speech, or which candidate to support. Sure, it sounds good for extreme right-wing examples, but there's no guarantee you can limit it to the worst extremes once people have that arbitrary power. Might be your job the mob decides to go after some day, because you chose the wrong candidate to support, according to whatever criteria they're using. Also because donating to a presidential campaign has nothing to do with their work performance.
- baddox 6y ago
  Note that we’re talking about material support for a cause, not merely speech. You may conflate the two, and some legal systems do as well, but I don’t.
PeterisP 6y ago
Not the parent commenter, but I'd consider that to be a key part of democracy, the right of political association. I'd consider firing someone for belonging to a particular political party the exact moral equivalent of firing someone for belonging to a particular religious denomination or ethnic group. As far as I know, in USA the employment discrimination laws draw a distinction between these classes (ethnicity and religion are protected classes, politics is not), however, my local laws and my personal moral compass puts them in the same basket; I'd consider someone being fired because they're, for example, a card-carrying member of the local radical communist party to be equivalent of firing someone because they're Jehovah’s Witness or have sexual practices of which the local church disapproves. They should be able to run as a candidate for that party in some elections while not having their employment threatened for that - this is needed to prevent e.g. the owner of a town-dominating factory from suppressing political opposition to the current elected town officials.
- baddox 6y ago
  > I'd consider firing someone for belonging to a particular political party the exact moral equivalent of firing someone for belonging to a particular religious denomination or ethnic group. I support firing someone for supporting a harmful cause, and particularly from intolerant causes. If, for instance, you provide material support for stripping voting rights from a minority group, or denying hospital visitation rights to couples with a certain sexuality, I would support your employer firing you for that. That applies regardless of whether you’re providing that support via a political or religious group. Political and religious groups shouldn’t enjoy any special protection when they’re doing harmful and intolerant things.

by baddox 6y ago

Udik 6y ago

> Are you against this in principle, for all possible presidential candidates regardless of how bad their views and policies are Not the GP, but of course yes. If someone is good enough for your political and legal system to advance his candidature at the elections and be voted by citizens, then who has the right to damage me for my legitimate political choice?

TulliusCicero 6y ago
So even if someone is a literal neo-Nazi who supports killing all the Jews, imprisoning gay people, and enslaving black people, donating to such a person's candidacy isn't disqualifying in terms of the basic character one might expect (or at least hope for) of someone leading a company? I don't see how an endorsement of a vile racist couldn't be seen as disqualifying for positions of authority.
- Udik 6y ago
  I don't get it: if someone's ideas are so universally considered horrific and dangerous, why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? The state defines a frame of things that are lawful and that every citizen should be able to perform in perfect safety. If you think that the laws of your country are not sufficient, then seek to change them; instead you seem to advocate for vigilante justice in the absence of shared and agreed upon rules.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Because of freedom of speech? The idea is that the state should not generally be in the business of determine what political speech should be legal, lest it always turn out that only the speech the benefits the powers that be, be allowed to remains standing. Do you seriously not see the difference between, "this opinion should not get you thrown in jail" and "this opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power"?
    - PeterisP 6y ago
      If you think that the opinion should not belong to someone in a position of power, vote against that candidate. But if enough others vote for that candidate, then that's a strong democratic signal that this opinion reflects many people's will and needs consideration and representation. In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions, no matter how much you dislike these opinions (it's plausible that they dislike your opinions just as much) and you should not get a veto to say that their opinions don't belong to someone in a position of power but your opinion can do so; people have the right to have their opinions represented in politics. Fringe opinions deserve only trivial representation and that's what they get, but this article is about various mainstream opinions held by as much as 62% of people, it's obvious that most of these opinions should be allowed to belong to someone in a position of power.
      - baddox 6y ago
        > In essence, the opinions of your opponents and enemies are just as valid as your opinions I think that this is not true and that society and individuals can and should reserve the right to suppress intolerant ideologies.
        PeterisP 6y ago
        What's sauce for goose is sauce for gander - if this justification is considered valid, it will be primarily used by those in power against the minorities they don't like; e.g. Trump reserving the right to suppress ideologies that are intolerant to "Blue lives matter" cause or conservative politicians reserving the right to suppress ideologies that threaten christian family values. You won't succeed in claims that your ideology is special and deserves protection that the opponents' ideology does not - that hypocrisy simply won't be accepted by everyone who doesn't already share your ideology. Your enemies have similar motivations as you do, they consider your political agenda as harmful and dangerous to society where it would be morally justified to ensure that the politions of power are cleansed from (for example) the liberal agenda. A line in the sand of "we won't harass people because of their political views" generally works as protection against oppression, even if you have to include oppressive political views as well in that basket. In essence, the choice in this matter is simply about escalation or living side by side with your political enemies by agreeing to specify where "the battlefield" is - IMHO, ideally, limited to debates and votes by elected representatives and discourse in media and social circles. If it's escalated to "let's fight our enemies" in the field of employment or providing services then it's not as bad as street fights (which were used in political 'discourse' a hundred years ago) but still going to lead to a lot of people harmed on both sides.
ghaff 6y ago
There are a lot of very fringe political parties; getting on the ballot in at least a few states isn't that big a hurdle. Without necessarily agreeing or disagreeing, if you're a CEO (and the context of the question was around business executives) is it necessarily unreasonable if a board decides that their CEO's support for some controversial fringe presidential candidate is a distraction? (This seems less clear with a rank and file worker but they're also more expendable if something is becoming an internal controversy.)
- Udik 6y ago
  I understand that fringe political ideas can have a negative impact on the personal relationships in a work environment, especially for people in prominent roles. However I guess the keyword is can. Tolerance should be exercised from all sides and political ideas should not be a motivation in and by themselves. However it's also true that the CEO of a company is in some cases him/herself a political figure, so I guess it depends on the case.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    >However it's also true that the CEO of a company is in some cases him/herself a political figure That's certainly the case. And, at some level, a political figure doesn't get to have a private life beyond some constraints. In principle, this doesn't apply to lower-level employees--although in many cases those employees are public faces to the company as well. And companies will much more quickly dismiss individuals who become a headache for whatever reason than they will their CEO.
  - baddox 6y ago
    What is your response to the paradox of tolerance?
    - Udik 6y ago
      That the solution to it- becoming intolerant towards intolerance- is an option that needs to be regulated. The default of society should be tolerance, and very well defined limits should be put on it, if the need arises. If any actor in society is free to decide what it is fine to to be intolerant to, then you have effectively given people license to be intolerant. Which is what is happening now. So, to be clear: intolerance should be frowned upon by default. The community can decide to be intolerant towards some things, but those things must be agreed, shared and made clear once and for all. And at that point, that agreed-upon intolerance becomes a law and can be actually enforced by the state itself.

ianhorn 6y ago

I think my discomfort with the idea comes from my inability to know where to draw the line. If I think a person should be fired for a 2020 Trump donation in 2020, why would I think that person shouldn't be fired for a 2019 donation or a 2018 one? I don't think a donation should make someone completely unemployable, so I have trouble reconciling "should be fired from whatever their current job is for a thing they did in the last few years" with "shouldn't be excluded for a few years from the job market." That and imagining it the other way around. I'm adamantly pro-choice and have donated to orgs supporting this. From the right wing perspective, I support literal murder. What better justification than that to fire me? The only reason I can think that I shouldn't be fired for being pro-choice is that, well, my worldview is the right one.

baddox 6y ago
It doesn't strike me as much harder than drawing the line for more common reasons to fire someone, like incompetence or inappropriate workplace activity. Those are also continuums, and it's certainly not easy to know where to draw the line, and reasonable people will disagree about where to draw the line in each specific case. But we don't throw up our hands and say you can never be allowed to fire anyone for those reasons. It seems like many people think that "political" actions should enjoy a special protection and that no such actions should ever draw any criticism or consequences. The same attitude is common for actions labelled as "religious." I reject that special status.

goatlover 6y ago

> Are you against this in principle, Yep and for the same reason free speech is protected. Because nobody can be trusted with being the arbiter of correct speech, or which candidate to support. Sure, it sounds good for extreme right-wing examples, but there's no guarantee you can limit it to the worst extremes once people have that arbitrary power. Might be your job the mob decides to go after some day, because you chose the wrong candidate to support, according to whatever criteria they're using. Also because donating to a presidential campaign has nothing to do with their work performance.

baddox 6y ago
Note that we’re talking about material support for a cause, not merely speech. You may conflate the two, and some legal systems do as well, but I don’t.

PeterisP 6y ago

Not the parent commenter, but I'd consider that to be a key part of democracy, the right of political association. I'd consider firing someone for belonging to a particular political party the exact moral equivalent of firing someone for belonging to a particular religious denomination or ethnic group. As far as I know, in USA the employment discrimination laws draw a distinction between these classes (ethnicity and religion are protected classes, politics is not), however, my local laws and my personal moral compass puts them in the same basket; I'd consider someone being fired because they're, for example, a card-carrying member of the local radical communist party to be equivalent of firing someone because they're Jehovah’s Witness or have sexual practices of which the local church disapproves. They should be able to run as a candidate for that party in some elections while not having their employment threatened for that - this is needed to prevent e.g. the owner of a town-dominating factory from suppressing political opposition to the current elected town officials.

baddox 6y ago
> I'd consider firing someone for belonging to a particular political party the exact moral equivalent of firing someone for belonging to a particular religious denomination or ethnic group. I support firing someone for supporting a harmful cause, and particularly from intolerant causes. If, for instance, you provide material support for stripping voting rights from a minority group, or denying hospital visitation rights to couples with a certain sexuality, I would support your employer firing you for that. That applies regardless of whether you’re providing that support via a political or religious group. Political and religious groups shouldn’t enjoy any special protection when they’re doing harmful and intolerant things.