|
|
|
|
|
|
by dsacco
3104 days ago
|
|
|
And again, I'm not drawing any comparison or equivalence between people who eat meat and people who are gay. As clearly shown in the portion of my comment you quoted, I am comparing the beliefs and suggestions about which beliefs are allowed in the workplace. The equivalence I'm drawing is that both sets of beliefs have the capacity to be deeply controversial and eminently nonviolent, not that the respective lifestyles are qualitatively equivalent. If you disagree with my actual comparison, attack that one, not the one you think I (or want me to have) made. In point of fact, my entire argument relies on the axioms I explicitly and specifically outlined in the previous comment, which are: 1. nonviolent personal beliefs should not determine eligibility for employment, but violent activity, or endorsement of violent activity, may; and 2. nonviolent personal beliefs should only determine eligibility for employment if they are used for discrimination or advocation in the workplace, which is a matter of inappropriate professional conduct. I'm happy to entertain an argument against those axioms or the actual comparison I made, but don't just keep replying insisting I've made a false equivalence about two things that I'm not even comparing. |
|
|
>>Take a moment to put aside your very strongly held personal belief about gay rights to consider this dispassionately: aside from the fact that you feel right in your views, what is materially different about your suggestion from the suggestion that people should not be allowed to play League of Legends and participate in the community, because playing League is unethical? What would your reaction be if I was advocating this position as strongly as you’re advocating yours?
That statement is fundamentally equal to your previous statement. But the levels of controversial and how it actively affects people on a day-to-day basis vastly differs. Now to address your axioms:
>1. nonviolent personal beliefs should not determine eligibility for employment, but violent activity, or endorsement of violent activity, may; and
This depends on the collective community's beliefs. Note I am using the word community here, not just drawing a comparison to job-related activities. A company that advertises itself as being pro-LGBT hiring someone that espouses views like 'Transgender people don't exist', despite being a non-violent statement, goes against their overall goals. When a company hires someone like that, the end result is that people start leaving because people have a limit as to who they're willing to work with. Not all bigotry is violence and as an aside I have met people in tech who believe black people are inferior.
>2. nonviolent personal beliefs should only determine eligibility for employment if they are used for discrimination or advocation in the workplace, which is a matter of inappropriate professional conduct.
Often the two go hand-in-hand. We live in a world where what you do both outside and within the company represents them. The smarter people use multiple accounts and properly separate their work and personal lives. However when the two connect it becomes a matter of passive advocation in the workplace. A company allowing someone that believes black people are inferior to continue working at their company is not only a PR disaster in waiting (especially if they intend to promote him to higher positions) but it's also a tacit approval of his opinions. These views often subtly alter your perception too, and allowing said person to be a part of the recruiting process is, again, a PR disaster waiting to blow up.