So what I’m getting is if you’re a self employed racist people can boycott your business, but if a racist who happens to work for someone else they are untouchable because it’s unfair to boycott that business. The picture I’m getting is McRacist sitting inside his bosses sandwich shop sticking his tongue out saying nah nah you can’t effect me.
Your implying that businesses have some type of legal or ethical obligation to protect the actives their employees take part in outside of work.
The government does have those obligations and if you feel racists need additional protection you need to petition the government to change the laws, not sit around expecting employers to fill in gaps the government has left.
Probably a better way of doing it, and more what I would do. I admit I was thinking of a situation where he was the only employee. But I don’t think it is a bad thing if a person feels they don’t want to be in the same room as a racist, rather than waited on by one.
I think it is absolutely fine, and inevitable for the employer to consider that. If I have two equal candidates, I am going to pick the person I have more in common with. I am going to be spending time with this person, and so, ceteris paribus, I’m going to pick the person I am more likely to enjoy spending time with. Which sucks if you’re a City fan.
But this isn’t about the performance at work. Even if I have 100% knowledge that the racist’s performance at work won’t be impacted, I still wouldn’t hire him in that situation. Much as if I have a choice between two identical candidates, one who likes history and one who doesn’t, I’m picking the one who likes history.
Yes it is, and I have no problem with it. I don’t think the threat of violence should be legal, but I have no ethical problem with it. Racism is by its nature a threat of violence, and responding in kind is acceptable to me.
Racism should be addressed on multiple levels, and in multiple ways. One of the ways, especially with inbred mouth breathers who aren’t going to respond to rational discussion, is to instill in them the same level of fear (or greater, I don’t mind) they seek to instill in others.
*At which point *the person would be engaging in inappropriate behavior at work, so it would be appropriate for the *employer *to become involved. Voila.
Not at all. There’s a huge difference between *protecting *someone’s fordink activities and saying that their forbink abilities are none of your business.
And again, I am saying that the *people who are making it the employer’s problem *are the ones acting in an unethical and unAmerican manner. They went out of their way to find out who the guy worked for, when it wasn’t immediately apparent, so that they could twist his employer’s arm into passing judgment on his forbink opinions, which aren’t tied in any direct or obvious way to his employer.
This is where we disagree, then. I don’t think it’s ever acceptable to react to non-violent words or action, however hateful and disgusting, with violence or the intention to cause fear of harm. If I shared your opinion, however, then I’d agree that involving his employer would be an acceptable strategy. So it seems that what it comes down to is where you think the line is for ethical behavior in support of a good cause.
I understand your arguments. I just disagree with them.
I’ll point out that I haven’t had to support my position with ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with me. I find I can defend my position with reason.
I’ll also point out that the racist in question doesn’t meet even your limited range of what’s acceptable free speech. His bumper sticker says “Don’t Re-Nig in 2012”. In other words, he’s tried to get people to take away somebody’s job.
I also disagree with your belief that a boycott is as unethical as beating somebody up. The bumper sticker guy, while offensive, is not advocating violence. I’m also not advocating violence (and I wouldn’t advocate violence as a general response even if he had been calling for violence). He’s using public harassment and is trying to get people to take somebody’s job away. I’m doing the same.
YIKES! That’s creative. But tortured as hell. Your analogy would be much more apt if he was advocating Obama be impeached. But he’s not. There’s an election coming up, just like comes up every four years. Obama has to fight for his job whether this racist had a bumper sticker or not. The racist, on the other hand, has no upcoming election at which time he is expected to vie for his job. You are seeking to insinuate yourself in his employment. It’s very, very different.
Nope. For you to attempt top equate the President’s job with that of a worker in a fast food restaurant—or any other non-elected official—is ridiculous in the extreme. As I pointed out and you want to just handwave away, only one of those jobs has to be defended in an election next year—regardless if the guy has a bumper sticker or not. Heck, according to you, anyone puts a presidential sticker on their car is trying to, oh, how did you put it:
[QUOTE=Little Nemo]
…using public harassment and is trying to get people to take somebody’s job away. I’m doing the same.
[/QUOTE]
Can’t you see how absurd that is? I suppose the Constitution is harassing any second-term President by mandating he can’t run for a third term, too. Right? If you don’t agree and think that ridiculous, good. Now just apply the same reasoning to the nonsensical point you wrote.
Funny how you guys have to keep coming up with these new rules. I suppose it must be tough to defend what a racist is doing while denying you’re defending racism.
I’m still saying the same thing I started out with - I have no problem harassing a racist in any legal non-violent way that works.
Tell me, are there any other issues that you feel you are justifying bullying someone to the point that they must knuckle under to your way of thinking?
Well, not to spite your nose or anything… Hypothetically, it would be an interesting departe’ in military assignment. Where do you assign me as a hypothetical recruit?..being a Marine private just out of basic and having trained intensively as a linguist at DLI, German and Japanese- semi-fluent German, and has studied Japanese and Mandarin, as well as Spanish. I come from Hillbilly and German, and likely jewish roots. My grandfather was a recently slain MIA Marine at the invasion of Saipan, he left my infant Mother and four other equally young siblings, fatherless.
So where do I go? Where’s my first assignment and posting as a linguist- The “Nip” or “Kraut” and “Itai” POW Camp? Do I go to the front lines?
Sure, lots of them. I’m against racism and other forms of bigotry. I’m also against rape, child abuse, torture, murder, and cannibalism - if coming up with reasons to defend racism is causing you trouble, would you prefer to support one of these instead?
I didn’t ask you what you were against. My question went to actions, not beliefs. I asked you if there are any other issues that you feel justify bullying someone to the point that they must knuckle under to your way of thinking?
And nice try, but I’m not defending racism. Read what I’ve written. I’m not defending racism any more than the ACLU defended Nazism when they supported their right to march in Skokie.
You asked the question and I answered it. Let me repeat: “Sure, lots of them. I’m against racism and other forms of bigotry. I’m also against rape, child abuse, torture, murder, and cannibalism”
If I saw somebody with a bumper sticker that was seriously advocating any of these things, I’d treat them just the same way I would treat the hypothetical racist. If you want to call it bullying, then that’s what I’d be doing.
You seem to think that if you keep asking this question, that I’ll back away from what I’ve said. That I’ll suddenly start saying “whoa, whoa, whoa, I didn’t mean that…” But it’s not going to happen. I don’t feel any sense of shame over my position. I’m proud to be anti-racist and I have no problems saying it.
Yeah, you keep saying that. But you’re running out of wiggle room, aren’t you? It’s getting harder and harder for you to draw a fine line between defending racism and defending that thing that racists do. Because you know what that thing is that racists do? It’s racism.
It appears you have reading comprehension problems.
Let me try again and see if you get it this time.
I feel justified in bullying someone to the point that they must knuckle under to my way of thinking over issues such as rape, child abuse, torture, murder, and cannibalism.
Did it sink in this time?
Sure, they were defending Nazism in Skokie. But they were doing it as part of a general policy of defending free speech. The ACLU doesn’t give special protection to Nazism or racism. As Tao’s Revenge pointed out, the principles of the ACLU would defend my theoretical boycott just like they defended the Nazi march.
You’re not the ACLU. You’re arguing that it’s okay for a racist to harass other people but it’s wrong for other people to harass a racist. You’re asking for a racist to receive special treatment.
Actually, if you look at what I asked and what you wrote, it’s clear you have a writing problem. Really. Scroll back and have someone with good reading and writing skills read it to you. This last time you did answer it. Go look at the difference.
So, do you support the rights of others to bully someone to the point that they must knuckle , for the things that they feel strongly about?
I see part of the problem now. You don’t really understand what the ACLU was doing. They were NOT defending Nazism. You couldn’t be more wrong. I invite you to point to one person in the ACLU who defends their actions by saying they were defending Nazism. They were defending, as you included, the general concept of free speech. And just because they defend the concept, does NOT mean they were defending the ideology contained in that protected speech. In fact, the protections they were supporting are those needed for speech that most of society, including them, would NOT support. THAT is why it is an important concept. The less popular the speech, the more important the protection.