7 ms·
It might sound like a "lazy excuse" for someone who hasn't been in their shoes. As lazy as commenting one's gut reaction even. It might be worthwhile to actuall
by pell 5y ago
It might sound like a "lazy excuse" for someone who hasn't been in their shoes. As lazy as commenting one's gut reaction even. It might be worthwhile to actually give this one some thought, maybe read up on it, talk to people. The non-lazy response basically.
- LunaSea 5y agoNot really, responsible adults manage to get a grip over their emotions while at work.
- lelanthran 5y ago> It might sound like a "lazy excuse" for someone who hasn't been in their shoes. I'm in those shoes. I still won't interview anyone who left their previous company over an inability to keep their religious/political beliefs away from work. It's a double whammy if the person in question left because they couldn't proselytise to their co-workers.
- katbyte 5y agoWhat if they left because it’s clear the company has a leadership/hr problem? Or the 6 months pay? Ect How will you be able to tell why they left without interviewing them?
- lelanthran 5y agoWell, if I'm unable to tell why they left then they clearly aren't preaching their personal beliefs to the world, are they?
- katbyte 5y agohah good point
- rayiner 5y agoNobody’s “existence” has been politicized in the 30 years I’ve been in America.[1] I remember during 2015-2016 my friends were freaking out asking if I was worried if Trump would be sending people from Muslim countries (like me) to internment camps. I thought they were being completely absurd. I guess it wasn’t just me: a third of Muslims voted for Trump in 2020. People don’t do that when their “very existence has been politicized.” Government policies may be unfair, unconstitutional, or discriminatory to different groups of people. But that’s not politicizing people’s “very existence.” That sort of rhetoric is just a way to dial up the temperature of political debates by equating any negative impacts with existential harm. People have a right to freely debate things like who the government will let into the country, what benefits it will provide to whom, etc. [1] Except unborn children, whose very existence has literally been politicized.
- darkerside 5y agoWhat about deportation of undocumented immigrants? Isn't their existence in this country politicized? People are being killed by gun violence, police violence, gang violence. Isn't it fair for people affected by these things to feel their lives have become political footballs?
- rayiner 5y ago> What about deportation of undocumented immigrants? Isn't their existence in this country politicized? Their presence in a country they’ve entered illegally is the subject of political debate, but that’s not equivalent to a threat to their “very existence.” Calling it that is an attempt to emotionalize a basic function of sovereign nations: policing their borders. It’s something every country does—including the countries from where these undocumented immigrants came. > People are being killed by gun violence, police violence, gang violence. Isn't it fair for people affected by these things to feel their lives have become political footballs? If you’ve been killed by gun violence or police violence or gang violence, then you’re dead. If you haven’t, then you’re debating government policy, not the fact of your “very existence.” Even mundane government policy has life or death implications. People running red lights kills six to ten times as many people each year as mass shootings. But framing a debate over stoplight timing in terms of peoples’ “existence” would be a way to shut down rational policy debate. As an Asian person, I’m much more likely to be killed or attacked by a repeat offender than by the police. But that doesn’t mean I can shut down a discussion of eliminating bail by saying it’s a “threat to my very existence.”