[badsock]

I'm mostly responding to your "Why does diversity initiatives never seem to care about diversity of political opinions?" question.

I'm saying that it's legitimate for diversity initives to not support all political positions in the name of diversity. Yes, it's a paradox, but it's not something that hasn't been addressed.

And, yes, the Trump ticket was intolerant. You can make the argument solely on the grounds of the anti-muslim rhetoric, not to mention his running mate's public views on gay rights.

[bluthru]

>Yes, it's a paradox, but it's not something that hasn't been addressed.

It's quite the paradox, as you'll see:

>You can make the argument solely on the grounds of the anti-muslim rhetoric, not to mention his running mate's public views on gay rights.

"One incredible Gallup report from 2009 found that 0 percent of British Muslims viewed homosexual acts as morally acceptable."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/28/magazine/can-a-former-isl...

A lot of Trump voters probably don't want more Muslims immigrating into the US. Are you saying that can't even be discussed, despite the fact that Muslims don't approve of homosexuality, even in Britain?

Or what about the Muslims in the US who hold Sharia law above US law and don't want free speech? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PfmywzjdtRM

Are Americans intolerant for questioning if we should have more of that intolerance?

Should we not let Muslims into this country "solely on the grounds of" their "public views on gay rights"? I mean my god, should a Muslim be allowed to work at Facebook's London office based on their homophobic beliefs?

Please be more open minded in the future.

[badsock]

It's a left-wing value that you can, and should, separate the person and what they believe from their actions.

If anyone were to suggest that we should ban Trump supporters from immigrating to my country, I would be very opposed to that. I would also be opposed to denying those people the ability to hold public office, or receive services, etc., based on their beliefs.

So it's fine to be a Muslim. But if a person wants to use public forums to push Sharia law, which includes the subjugation of women and punishment of gays, I support removing their access to those forums. What goes on in that person's head, or what they discuss in the privacy of their homes/email/etc., is none of my business, no matter how odious I find it. But if those beliefs start impacting the public and are discriminatory, then the hammer comes down.

You see it as hypocrisy to condemn specific actions without also condemning affiliated people. I see those as separate things, so you can have a different policy for each. You can't punish people for something you think they believe should be done, but that they haven't actually done or incited others to do themselves.

Trump and Pence have both taken substantive actions against Muslims and gays, not based on what those populations actually did, but based on what they believe or who they are. If a Muslim campaigned for and legislated in accordance with Sharia law, I would condemn them in exactly the same way (but more strongly).

But I will not condemn every Muslim a priori even though I completely disagree with their beliefs.

> Please be more open minded in the future.

Please be less condecending in the future.