Who is sending Bombs?

This is the problem. Once you’ve decided to employ the Nazi, he starts to influence your other staffing and management decisions. Maybe you don’t hire a black manager or transgender cook because it might trigger the Nazi. Or you end up asking certain employees to give him a wide berth or not talk to much around him, because it might trigger the Nazi.

It would also create a disruptive atmosphere once his view became known. And I’d have to deal with other employees that would continually poke the bear, so to speak.

And I personally believe that such extreme views are indicative of mental problems, or serious socialization problems. And as an employer I have every right to hire who I want and I find that employees that are friendly and well-socialized make for a more pleasant work environment. And I want to ctreate a pleasant work environment for myself. I know there are a lot of people out that with socialization problems but they are not for me.

The other thing is, my employees aren’t delivering pizza. I have to send them into the homes of people who sometimes espouse alternate lifestyles and sometimes into the homes of prominent people. I might LITERALLY have to send a guy into George Soros house. So I set the bar pretty high.

And I will also add that I sometimes send people into the homes of prominent right wingers as well. And if I had an employee that publicly advocated for left wing political violence I wouldn’t keep them around…While those viewpoints don’t disgust me quite as much as white supremacy, I would still have a trust issue. I might feel differently if I ran a pizza parlor, but that’s not what I do.

Well said.

Another fair consideration is the ethics of knowingly funding Nazi propaganda (memes ect) and other activities, albeit indirectly, by keeping a Nazi on your payroll. This is stuff that uplifts no one; it’s hatred and lies that uglify the world. So what would be the moral imperative for doing this?

I would not, not if we are talking about pizzeria jobs. Because experience tells me that if I only have one applicant today, I will likely have another tomorrow or the next day. We aren’t talking about having to fill a rocket scientist position. We’re talking about a job that anyone with a car and smart phone can do.

The day I’m so desperate that I’m willing to hire a known Nazi is that the day I need to rethink how well I’m managing my business and finding employees. No one should be that desperate.

Speaking as a liberal who thinks people can absolutely held responsible for their voiced opinions, I think firing people for things they do outside of work is dodgy, unless it invites criticism from others that can potentially impact the business.

This hypothetical business is open from 8a-5p M-F and both are full-time employees.

And now, by hiring this Nazi, you’ve created a hostile work environment, which by law you are not allowed to maintain as such. What do you do?

Several sources report that authorities think Sayoc could have mailed packages as late as last Thursday. Since USPS-sent packages typically take a few days to arrive, it’s quite possible that more will turn up this week.

The whack-a-doodle right is now spinning crazy theories about the MAGAbomber.

No, the MAGAbomber was not posing with some big secret Democratic donor.

No, the MAGAbomber was not a former CNN employee with ties to Hillary.

As soon as news crops up that you’d think would disillusion the MAGA crowd, they come up with fake stories to shift blame to the Democrats. And the MAGAmorons believe every word.

Believing things without any evidence is one their primary functions.

I don’t think this is a bad stance to have in general, but I don’t think it works as an absolute.

Picture an abortion protestor. The type that camps outside of clinics holding up posters of mutilated fetuses and shouting obscenities at women going in and out of the place. The type that praises and defends people who kill abortion doctors, and funds billboards that promulgate false abortion statistics. Thanks to Facebook, you know all this about this person.

They work for a company that happens to be downsizing. People are getting laid off.

You, the general manager, have some tough decisions to make. Do you layoff the abortion protestor or do you layoff their coworker—a person who happens to volunteer for the March of Dimes in their spare time and do other charitable things in the community. They are equal in all relevant personnel metrics (seniority, skills, etc). The potential for customers to complain about either one is nil because of the nature of their jobs.

Would you see it as “dodgy” to factor in outside activities when deciding who to let go in this hypothetical? I would not use a coin flip to select which one to let go, because truth be told, I see more benefits to allowing a charitable person keep their job than retaining one who makes it harder for others to live in peace. But I wouldn’t judge someone for selecting at random.

Indeed. I wouldn’t have lowlifes working for me.

Yep. And fuck him if he doesn’t like it.

Yeah, and if he does, don’t.

I’d have to review the postings this “Nazi” made. Is he explicitly advocating for genocide? Has he made specific, credible threats to other employees? In that case, sure I’d fire him. But there’s a difference between an actual Nazi and someone who’s just shitposting Pepe the Frog memes.

Why? No, I’m asking seriously. Do you claim you can see in their heart of hearts what the truth of their soul is? They are disseminating racist memes which brings more hate into the world. If they have so little empathy, maybe I don’t want them interacting with the general public with my business’s name attached to them.

Actions have consequences. They want to post like a racist shirtlord, they’ll get treated like one. Maybe then they can grow up. Or more likely, you’ll find out they truly were a racist shitlord and your own judgment needs to be re-calibrated.

The guys from The Daily Stormer sure want you to believe this.

"The unindoctrinated should not be able to tell if we are joking or not. There should also be a conscious awareness of mocking stereotypes of hateful racists. I usually think of this as self-deprecating humor - I am a racist making fun of stereotype of racists, because I don’t take myself super-seriously.

This is obviously a ploy and I actually do want to gas kikes. But that’s neither here nor there."

Indeed, that’s how they hide just how vicious and evil their agenda is. They know full well that decent people generally reject fascism and genocide. But by hiding it as “edgy humor” they can push it into the mainstream. And it works - racist humor can function as a pathway to actual racism:

In other words, when we consider groups that most people discriminate against, and feel they are justified in doing so, disparaging humor towards that group does not foster discriminatory acts against them. On the other hand, for groups for whom the prejudice norm is shifting, and there is still no consensus not to discriminated against (women, gays, Muslims and so on), if you hold negative views against one of these groups, hearing disparaging jokes about them “releases” inhibitions you might have, and you feel it’s ok to discriminate against them.

Previous studies by Ford and others on sexist humor showed the same pattern. People who are sexist to begin with and enjoy sexist jokes show higher tolerance for sexist events, tend to accept rape myths, and tend to show greater willingness to discriminate against women.

These studies illuminate some aspects of humor that people sometimes tend to ignore. First, humor depends largely on the context and on the personality and the attitudes of the audience. Jokes are never neutral. The same joke can be funny or not, but can also be racist or not racist depending on who tells it and to whom. The jokes I presented at the beginning of the post may be anti-Semitic to some, but to others, including most Jews they are not considered offensive. Depending on the views you hold against or in favor of Jews, or what you consider to be justified or unjustified racism, you might find derogatory jokes against Jews funny or not funny, and hearing these jokes may or may not prompt you to discriminate against them.

Second, humor is not always positive and fun. We tend to think about humor as something that is innocuous, something that might be good for our health, moods, relationships and so on, but humor also has its dark side, and we should all be aware of it. Sometimes humor can lead to negative and harmful outcomes against others, and we should be conscious of when and how it can happen.

Our humor tells us what is acceptable to laugh about, what we can joke about, what can be funny. And the shift can often be quite subtle. Why is the joke at the beginning of the article funny? If you don’t already accept the stereotype that jewish stepmothers automatically hate their son-/daughter-in-laws, the whole joke falls flat. The joke is asking you to accept that stereotype, and treat it as normal. It’s a step up from the “how do you starve a mexican” line, but it’s still not great. And that’s how places like /pol/ and The Daily Stormer operate. They use humor as a path to get people paying attention that otherwise wouldn’t. “It’s just edgy humor!”

No. It’s not. And we need to stop giving people the benefit of the doubt on this. If the way you’re acting is indistinguishable from a neo-nazi propagandist, you need to stop. Best case scenario: you’re a decent person and stop. Otherwise, no, you don’t belong in polite society, “joke” or not.

All this is kind of a moot point, given that this particular nazi was, indeed, making specific, credible threats on twitter (if not necessarily to other employees).

Democrats are just the same - Kavanaugh, anyone?

I don’t know what you Americans need to do to fix your politics but it’s going to take serious efforts from all sides.

What is this even supposed to mean? There was (is) plenty of evidence there. At least enough to raise serious questions about his suitability to hold a high position in government.

Ah, both-sides-ism. Well, fuck that noise. One “side” wink-nudge encourages violent extremists into mailing bombs and shooting lots of people in public venues. The other “side” posts internet memes and behaves rudely in restaurants.

You are seriously suggesting there is remotely the same level of culpability, so fuck you and your idiocy.

What utter bullshit. For one thing, there was evidence – the testimony of the accusers. For another, the mainstream Democratic position was “we believe that these accusations should be taken seriously and fully investigated prior to any vote on Kavanaugh”.

The two sides are not even close to the same on this, and shame on you for spreading this “both sides” bullshit.

Testimony is evidence. It’s not enough to always prosecute or acquit, but it is evidence.

In many cases, it’s enough to warrant further investigation. The week the FBI got was not enough IMHO.

A ton of evidence that Kavanaugh stretched the truth considerably during his testimony and probably outright lied in a few places. Not to mention, he didn’t exactly display judicial temperament in that final hearing, instead portraying himself as the target and victim of a bizarre conspiracy that exists only in his head.

Got a better example?