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.
