I haven’t “scolded” anyone. I have said that it looks like we’re headed down a bad road. I believe that.
Believe me, I’m not trying to impress you. That’s really not a concern of mine.
But as to being “fair-minded” or “objective,” I’m pretty sure nobody in this thread cares about that.
The “radlcal fringe?” Dangerosa is talking about not hiring anyone who voted for Trump.
This. Tromp is not normal. The Trump presidency is not a normal presidency. Support for Trump is not a normal political opinion.
Trump is a fascist would-be dictator. His supporters are either fascists themselves, are okay with fascism, or too stupid to be given any kind of trust.
I don’t know exactly what geographic area you mean to reference, but I’ll note that Trump won about 22% of the vote in Kings County.
I don’t claim that it is a perfect filter, but if I’m trying to exclude people who are going to be non-compliant, people who publicly assert that they have a problem with compliance seems an easy first step. YMMV
Um, all of us here in this thread are actively engaged in a discussion, which has now run to 160+ posts, that is explicitly about what constitutes fair-minded and objective behavior—namely, what is “ethical”—in a specific position of responsibility with regard to a specific set of characteristics.
We’re arguing about this because we care about being fair-minded and objective. Just because many of us disagree with you about what fair-mindedness and objectivity entail in this context doesn’t entitle you to sniffle pettishly that we just don’t care about them at all.
Sorry. New Yorkers would have understood. I mean the neighborhoods of Park Slope and Brookyn Heights and the nearby 'hoods, which are becoming more liberal as they get gentrified.
Trump did well in the ultra-Orthodox neighborhoods, and in the old Italian enclaves in Brooklyn.
I’m not, and that’s not how I’m reading Dangerosa either, in that s/he is explicitly drawing a distinction between “a Trump supporter in the problematic sense” and other Trump supporters.
You know, you’re right. Although you could tone down the language a bit. I mean “sniffle pettishly?” Please. I disagree with you. That doesn’t mean I’m scolding. Or sniffling.
As I’ve said above, this nation is in serious need of healing. Drawing ever-brighter lines, ostracism, economic disempowerment, etc., don’t seem to me to further the process.
You’re right, I could and I will. Sorry. “I’m pretty sure nobody in this thread cares about that” sounded rather pettish to me, but I didn’t have to jump on it so hard.
S/he said:
It is hard at this point not to read racism and sexism into support of Trump - but if the rest of their social media presence seems to indicate that they aren’t an asshole, their Trump support is not rabid and conspiratorial and they are well qualified and interview well, maybe they are not a Trump supporter in the problematic sense. Like all hiring decisions that’s a judgement call. Personally, I’d err on the side of not hiring them - more damage can be caused with them inside the company than outside it.
I read that as saying s/he just wouldn’t hire a Trump voter, even if “their social media presence seems to indicate that they aren’t an asshole, their Trump support is not rabid and conspiratorial and they are well qualified and interview well.”
I think that’s a fair reading of the post. If I’m wrong, fair enough. Let him/her correct me.
For me, support of Trump is way beyond politics. To support Trump, you have to think it’s ok to mock disabled people, hate minorities, assault women, torture children, and ignore facts. These folks refuse to accept facts, flipflop regularly on significant issues, and justify actions they called unAmerican transgressions last week. This isn’t political, it’s character and why would I want an employee who ignored facts that didn’t jibe with their worldview? Or who thought open hatred of nonChristians or minorities was acceptable. Such people would be nothing but problems and lawsuits in many, if not most, positions.
Because the people that hate the haters are the real haters, right?
Intolerance is intolerance. As I said above, I’d rather convert than crush.
Because workplace harassment is o.k., but screening for potential troublemakers isn’t?
Please, point out to me where I said workplace harassment is okay.
Because civilized human beings recognize that not everyone is capable of defending themself, and victimizing the defenseless is the mark of a bully. Because failure to protect people in the past has resulted in such evils as slavery, genocide, and general oppression, poverty, and suffering.
I don’t think so. Nowhere AFAICT did Dangerosa say that absolutely any Trump voter whatsoever would be an unacceptable hire. She was talking about a hiring manager’s responsibility to examine an applicant’s public profile.
If somebody’s public profile is indicative of actual explicit support for Trump, it is reasonable for a hiring manager to be concerned about possible negative consequences of that for the company.
We can’t refuse to call a spade a spade merely because we’re afraid of seeming “divisive”. I’m not trying to damn the entire pre-Trump Republican Party or anyone who ever voted for any of them. Heck, I’ve had in the past some highly principled and admirable Republican legislators that I’ve voted for myself.
But the “Trumpublican” phenomenon is not about any discernible principles of public service that merely happen to disagree with their Democratic/liberal counterparts in various ways. It’s about deliberately ignorant and malicious shit-stirring of a cesspool of lunatic paranoid fantasies in order to replace critical thinking and political compromise with tribalist hatred. Taking a firm stand against that kind of malevolent exploitation of political partisanship is the only thing that’s ultimately going to reduce the level of “divisiveness” in this country.
Yes. That’s great. But don’t you see the hypocrisy in wishing to have protected classes yet retain the freedom to discriminate when it’s convenient?
You just said that you would try to convert them to your political point of view. If you do this at work and you are their superior, that is harassment.
As a corporate manager, I’m responsible for ensuring not only that we actively recruit, retain and promote POC and women. I’m also responsible for not only making sure harassment doesn’t happen, but that we do not have a hostile work environment. If you are on record as supporting someone who has a record of racist dog whistles and believes the statement about “grabbing them by the pussy” was not immediately disqualifying to be President of the United States, then you can’t be counted on to keep an environment from being hostile. I can’t count on you not only not to harass, but to say something when you see it. And since you think you are so entitled that its appropriate to state these views, using your own name, in a public forum like Facebook, I really can’t trust you not to be a liability for me. Because when the 24 year old marketing assistant in three inch heels sues us for allowing someone to sexually harass her, her attorney is going to dig up your posts and point out our lack of due diligence in the hiring process and how we “should have known.”
The time to clutch your pearls on how divided we were as a nation was when a candidate for President used the words “grab them by the pussy” and you publicly supported him anyway. .