6 ms·

> 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.

by 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.
  - baddox 6y ago
    > why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? What do you mean? Who among us gets to decide who is allowed on the ballot?
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.

by Udik 6y ago

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.
- baddox 6y ago
  > why do you even allow that person to run for the elections? What do you mean? Who among us gets to decide who is allowed on the ballot?

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.