The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and absent mitigating circumstances I’d consider firing people who held them. Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel given everything that’s been going on these days.
This is exactly the kind of intolerance this memo is advocating against. If you genuinely would fire all the 45% of people that voted for Trump, anyone who disapproves of the rhetoric of BLM, or considers Islam to have a poor human rights record then I would suggest you take a look in mirror before trying to find intolerance in your employees. Easily the majority of the US population would hold at least one of those views. Heck, even the first almost brings it to 50%.
> Easily the majority of the US population
> would hold at least one of those views.
If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical. I won't insult you by bringing up obvious examples from American history. If you want to calibrate your moral compass, the right way to do it isn't always a show of hands.
Sure, but saying you'd fire the majority of the US population in the name of tolerance is absolutely contradictory. The notion that a blanket firing of 45% of the adult population is an act of tolerance is ridiculous.
Sure I do think there are some views that should not be tolerated and employees who advocate them should be removed - none of the four listed there come close to it, though.
> The notion that a blanket firing of
> 45% of the adult population is an act
> of tolerance is ridiculous.
Nope. It's perfectly moral, logical, and whether it's 45%, or 1%, or 99% makes no difference. The examples from history are too numerous to mention. You have to decide what your values are and stand by them.
I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about tolerance. Only tolerating the things you think are morally right isn't tolerance - quite the opposite. Tolerance entails tolerating things even when you don't find them morally right. For instance, I think a closed border is morally bad - it's still an act of intolerance if I were to fire someone for supporting enforcement of immigration laws.
This warped definition of tolerance particularly worried me. The growing notion that tolerance means snuffing out views one disapproves of, rather than tolerating them is the root of much of the growing political division in my opinion. And not to mention, there's a big risk that this will hurt liberals in the long run. It's easy to forget that this line of thinking also empowers conservatives to snuff out views they don't like - and look at who's in control of the White House, Congress, and (likely soon to be) the Supreme Court.
I wanted to counter your points by presenting a hypothetical hiring example (one employee from a certain group, and another who votes a particular way), but that gets into an argument over whether certain US government policies are racist, and that's off topic for HN.
As a general rule, I lob complaints at private companies. So I care at lot if Company X is doing ill to society (what I consider ill, at any rate). Whether the government should step in is a separate, and more dangerous, issue to me.
> I wanted to counter your points by presenting a hypothetical hiring example (one employee from a certain group, and another who votes a particular way), but that gets into an argument over whether certain US government policies are racist
This is not the case, I have discussed affirmative action and discrimination without repercussions (presumably what you're talking about). No policy I'm aware of prohibits it on HN.
If I ran an English business in 1968, I probably wouldn't hire an Enoch Powell supporter.
I'm fine if an employee disagrees with me over how high income tax should be, or whether or not healthcare should be privatized. People are allowed to have different views. However if I think someone is intolerant, I don't want to help them. That kind of tolerance is tolerance in name only.
I wouldn't want to associate my business with, or financially support, an employee who, say, spends the weekends rallying to kick West Indians out of the country. Whether such rallies draw sparse, or teeming crowds, doesn't make a difference to me.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic? Without additional protections, such as a bill of rights, "democracy" is stupid. But most us live in "liberal democracies", which are as good as it gets.
I didn't put a "/s" because doing so would convey an inaccuracy.
> Without additional protections, such as a bill of rights, "democracy" is stupid. But most us live in "liberal democracies", which are as good as it gets.
Our Bill of Rights doesn't say squat about what happens when 51% of the population decide that they want to steal all of your possessions for themselves. If a dispute-resolver (especially a monopolistic one, aka a government) does not purport to protect from even the simple crime of theft, then it is most stupid.
I have a feeling that the majority of the commenters here would not be happy with the results of an armed revolution. You can be snarky on the internet all you want, but guns win wars, and there's a hell of a lot more guns in Texas than California.
Hell, if you want to go down a very concerning rabbit hole, look up youtube videos of people prepping for a communist revolution. There's a lot of mass murder pre-planned for the end of democracy.
I don’t agree that all criticism of misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy is driven by “deeply-rooted white supremacy.”
I would fire anyone who held such a belief, as I would not trust them around female, gay, or ex-Muslim co-workers.
If you feel I’ve misunderstood your comment, or that you did not fully articulate your point, please feel free to elaborate. I’m not overly swayed or impressed by drive-by disparagement.
> misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy
It is a caricature. You have been reading the internet too much and spent too little time talking to actual Muslim people. However, if you find out that one of your employees is a member of the taliban, feel free to fire him.
There are 13 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is punishable by death, including Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan only imposes the death sentence for blasphemy.
The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true)
I’ve heard horror stories of ex-Muslims in the US who were kidnapped and physically abused by their family when they tried to leave Islam.
Between mass-rape attacks in Germany, the many, many grooming gangs in the UK, and the latest sexual assault statistics from Sweden, I think it’s fair to take a skeptical eye towards mainstream Islamic male culture. Moderate and reformist Muslims in the West, for context, comprise a small majority of the faithful.
The Christian and Jewish faiths have reformed and lightened up with the liberalization of Western society. I think it’s fair to expect and allow adherents to the Islamic faith to walk a similar path.
EDIT: And for the record, I get along great with my Muslim co-workers. Please stop moving goalposts; to reiterate, your premise was that criticism of Islam's human rights record is driven by deep-rooted white supremacy.
> The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true)
Point out one of these Sharia courts on Google maps please.
I'm done talking with someone who out-and-out lies.
"I later saw the Islamic Shari’a Council of Leyton. This community has religious, educational, business and legal institutions to maintain a separate identity."
Sure. Pew Research, a widely-respected nonpartisan fact tank, has conducted several studies in this area. They found that roughly 70% of Muslims worldwide support Sharia as the law of the land, coming out to just over 1.2 billion people.
I don't have to tell you that for women, gay people, and ex-Muslims, this isn't great news. Sometimes facts like these can be uncomfortable, but if we ignore them, things don't improve and real people suffer.
How was the human rights record in Malaysia before Islam? How do the countries you listed compare in terms of women’s rights with their non-Islamic neighbors? Pakistan is a rough part of town for women, but isn’t India dealing with their own women’s rights issues around rape, and honor killing? How much of what you’ve described is a religious issue, versus cultural or socioeconomic?
Disclaimer: I’m not Muslim, or from the regions described.
That's a great question. I would hope that if it ever came up in a work context, one hypothesis would not automatically be assumed without an open and honest and conversation.
It’s also probably the kind of thing you need to know a lot about before you start accusing a religion which represents a sizable fraction of the world, and which has many existing sects and interpretations, of being a causative agent in so many ills. An open and honest discussion is fine, but when one person has a strong position staked out without having done the requisite “homework” it’s not unrealistic that people will draw conclusions about their motives. Someone who has wondered about the relationship between Islam and women’s rights, modesty and so forth, and then taken the time to learn about where Islam vs. local pre-Islamic traditions stand on the issue might draw conclusions as well. Others, who note the intolerance for gay rights throughout much of Africa, in Islamic, Christian, and other religious frameworks might start to suspect that Islam wasn’t the active ingredient. Someone who noted the appalling history of women’s rights in much of Asia regardless of religious context might do the same.
Such a person would almost certainly be wary of engaging in debate, however open and honest, with someone who came to their strong conclusions in the face of such easily available evidence to the contrary. You also have to remember that some people use the framework of an open and honest discussion to proselytize, or rant. The archetypical bigot who “wants a fair debate about immigration” while really just wanting to express their bigotry without getting heat for it is one example. The antisemite who talks in terms of “bankers” and “globalists” is another. It’s unfair, but we all have to share a world with them, and so even when we really want to have an open and honest conversation we have to go that extra mile to prove it in cases like these. Otherwise people who don’t act in good faith can effectively mount a DOS on our time and attention through our goodwill.
Edit: Downvotes in lieu of something to say is something I’m becoming depressingly familiar with here. I can see why some people revert to low-effort posting when it’s going to be met with zero-effort. Oh well, I’m not sure what I expected.
I know a fair bit about Islam, but I'm always ready with an open mind to hear out different points of view, which is the ultimate topic of this submission. I'm also not even able to downvote, so take that as you will.
Equating 'misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality' with an entire religion of 1.6 billion people is the issue, not criticism of a specific country's human rights record. You should not come to work and rail against a major world religion...
You saddle up to a co-worker at the water cooler. Hi Yasir (he's from the Bay Area), you know your religion has a terrible record of human rights? Yeah? Cool, see you at the standup in 30 minutes.
Yes that's how it plays out. A lot of Muslims (and ex-Muslims) desperately want to reform that religion. They often emigrate to the US to get away from that crap. Go on youtube and search for "ex muslim"
I think we both agree that's a ridiculous and unrealistic example.
I'm not the type to raise political or religious issues at work, unless it relates to the decision or task at hand. If my company were to consider donating to a conservative Islamic charity for International Women's Day, for example, then I might offer my perspective. Otherwise, why start workplace conversations that are likely to be divisive, distracting, and unproductive?
