5 ms·

I don't believe that is what she said. You are making the point that I say should be avoided: you believe she said one thing, so that must make her an X, and Xs

I don't believe that is what she said. You are making the point that I say should be avoided: you believe she said one thing, so that must make her an X, and Xs are dangerous...you have no idea. And if someone is discriminating against another person in hiring (btw, inevitable...height/weight/accent, it is basically impossible to remove this, people are fairly safe on religion because no-one can tell what religion another person is without asking) then that is enough. There is no need to examine the person's statements and try to work out how they would behave in a hypothetical example (doing this is discriminating...you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way?).

klyrs 5y ago
> I don't believe that is what she said. You are making the point that I say should be avoided: you believe she said one thing, so that must make her an X, and Xs are dangerous...you have no idea. No, please read my comment more carefully, because I said none of that. I don't believe that she did or didn't say anything. I said "alleged" and meant it -- I've read exactly one article about this person and never heard of her before. I said that having a post like that under one's name could be used as evidence against their employer in the case of a Title VII claim. Not that it would definitely indicate that the poster is racist; not that the poster is "dangerous" -- I'm said that the poster could reasonably be viewed as a legal liability to their employer. > you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way? Another example of non-free speech: if you admit to having done a crime, that will be used against you in court (note, the admission itself is not a crime -- but it is evidence). If you express intent to do a crime, and somebody alleges that the same crime happened, and you're placed at the scene of the alleged crime, then your expression of intent will be used against you in court. Whether or not I want that to happen to me is irrelevant. That's how the legal system works.

klyrs 5y ago

> I don't believe that is what she said. You are making the point that I say should be avoided: you believe she said one thing, so that must make her an X, and Xs are dangerous...you have no idea. No, please read my comment more carefully, because I said none of that. I don't believe that she did or didn't say anything. I said "alleged" and meant it -- I've read exactly one article about this person and never heard of her before. I said that having a post like that under one's name could be used as evidence against their employer in the case of a Title VII claim. Not that it would definitely indicate that the poster is racist; not that the poster is "dangerous" -- I'm said that the poster could reasonably be viewed as a legal liability to their employer. > you aren't judging a person on their actions but how you believe they would act in a hypothetical you invent...would you like to be judged this way? Another example of non-free speech: if you admit to having done a crime, that will be used against you in court (note, the admission itself is not a crime -- but it is evidence). If you express intent to do a crime, and somebody alleges that the same crime happened, and you're placed at the scene of the alleged crime, then your expression of intent will be used against you in court. Whether or not I want that to happen to me is irrelevant. That's how the legal system works.