[Pxtl]

I do get it. That's why I started from the important of professionalism, of separating the professional from the personal. But I'm also pointing out the other side: that maybe, just maybe, this kind of thing crosses the line. If it was just his beliefs we wouldn't know about them in the first place. But obviously, we know about them, which means it's not just his beliefs it's his statements.

If I went around on some other private forum and said "tps5 is sub-human and should be subservient to me" you'd have reason to say "I will not work with Pxtl and I'm disappointed that this project is working with him, his behavior is seriously not okay".

If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay?

[tps5]

> If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay?

Yeah, it's okay.

I would say that, because we are coworkers, you are obligated to treat me respectfully, whatever your personal beliefs. If you treat me poorly, and I complain, the issue is the fact that you treated me poorly, not your whacko belief system.

If this guy behaved improperly towards women, then I have no problem with him being "removed from the community." But posting X whacko opinion on Y message board should not hurt you professionally. That applies equally to racism and holocaust-denial and whatever other fringe beliefs you can come up with.

[Frondo]

I'm not sure it's possible to have certain views and maintain a respectful workplace environment, full stop.

To make an extreme hypothetical: You have a white supremacist coworker and a black coworker. The white supremacist always treats your black coworker with respect, kindness, and compassion. She also openly admits that, nothing personal, but she believes black folks are inferior and should be expelled/exterminated. Ask the black coworker, is he being treated poorly?

What's the resolution in this situation? If he knows how she feels, but she is nice to him, how do you propose resolving that?

[ng12]

Why is she openly admitting it? If she brings it to work that's the problem.

[Frondo]

What if she were out marching with a white power rally on the weekend, and the black coworker happened to see her there?

What's that going to be like on the following Monday? If asked, in this hypothetical, is she supposed to lie?

"So, Jean, I saw you at a white power rally...you were holding an effigy of a hanged black person...what's that about?"

Or, contrive any situation in which her views on her black colleague (i.e. that, although she treats him with kindness and respect, she considers him subhuman and would like to exile/exterminate him and everyone who looks like him) were brought into the workplace.

If the white supremacist coworker doesn't bring up her white supremacist views at work, ever, and treats her black colleague with kindness and respect, at work, but outside the office does not conceal her views, and when asked directly does not lie about them ("Yes, Jim, I'd kill every black person if I could"), how do you resolve the tension that's going to arise from that?

Tell the black colleague, "Jim, don't ask Jean about her white supremacy."? How's Jim supposed to feel about working with her, knowing what he knows about Jean?

[ng12]

I think the line is "undue hardship". There's a legal precedent that the accusation of accommodation of religious beliefs causing undue hardship "generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work" [1] -- I'd argue the same goes for any personal belief system. In this scenario Jean is an asshole but I don't think it causes Jim undue hardship if she never discusses it at work. Jim has no legal right to like his coworkers, nor does Jean have to be liked. However, if she hung a Nazi flag by her desk it would be a different story.

1. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2009/religionhandshak...

[Frondo]

I would like to find out what people who have been traditionally been the target of white supremacy groups would say to your reply. I would like to know if they would consider it acceptable, given the history and context of white supremacy and the violence toward minorities that it's led to.

I wonder if they would be OK with, "well, Jean marches with a group calling for your extermination, and you know, throughout history, there's been a lot of violence from them to people who look like you, but since she doesn't bring it up at work, deal with it."

I think I'll ask around with my POC friends, in that ham-fisted way white folks always end up asking about these things ("So, I don't want you to speak for all people of color, but ... I'm hashing something out on the internet with some stranger who's probably also a hetero white guy, and ...").

My hunch is, knowing your coworker wishes for the extermination of your people would be considered hostile and unacceptable, especially by those people historically targeted by white supremacist violence, even if she's nice to your face. Like, I imagine you'd have the same tension with a card-carrying nazi and a Jewish colleague who lost family in the holocaust.

[giaour]

If you acted on that belief in a public or professional capacity, then that would not be OK. "Acted" need not be defined overly restrictively -- openly advocating for a specific policy or state of affairs, running for office on a specific platform, even openly declaring membership in an organization that seeks to enact your beliefs could all be construed as actions given the right circumstances.

If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy.

[Pxtl]

> If instead you were discussing your sexual preferences on a private forum, then I would owe you an apology for having invaded your privacy.

Yeah, the fact that the letter doesn't mention that this was a BSDM thing - that these statements are part of a sex-play thing and should be regarded in that context - is kind of frustrating. I don't think casual readers are expected to know what "Gorean Philosophy" is.

I mention this because last time I saw "comments came out from a public figure on a private paywalled forum" it was about holocaust denial and the commentator was a journalist.

This thing being a sex thing hadn't entered my mind at all.

[atom-morgan]

> If I went around on some other private forum and said "all people who share attribute X with tps5 are sub-human and should be subservient to me" is that more or less okay?

If you didn't bring that into the workplace, yes. You can believe it and not act towards implementing it.

[interfixus]

I have given you an upvote, although I starkly disagree with what you're saying.

Your comment is greying out. HN's own petite version of silly distolerance - disagree, hence downvote. It isn't civilized at all.

[Frondo]

Of course people will have tolerance for some ideas and expressions and intolerance for others. Of course! We tend not to like reddit-style jokes here, and downvote those. Who speaks up for the reddit-style jokers, though?

If you really want to share ideas, and they're not well-received here, you can either refine/modify your ideas/delivery, or go somewhere else.

Complaining about downvotes, though? Man, there's a reason that's specifically called out in the guidelines.