[manfredo]

Sure, but saying you'd fire the majority of the US population in the name of tolerance is absolutely contradictory. The notion that a blanket firing of 45% of the adult population is an act of tolerance is ridiculous.

Sure I do think there are some views that should not be tolerated and employees who advocate them should be removed - none of the four listed there come close to it, though.

[charlesism]

    > The notion that a blanket firing of 
    > 45% of the adult population is an act 
    > of tolerance is ridiculous.

Nope. It's perfectly moral, logical, and whether it's 45%, or 1%, or 99% makes no difference. The examples from history are too numerous to mention. You have to decide what your values are and stand by them.

[manfredo]

I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about tolerance. Only tolerating the things you think are morally right isn't tolerance - quite the opposite. Tolerance entails tolerating things even when you don't find them morally right. For instance, I think a closed border is morally bad - it's still an act of intolerance if I were to fire someone for supporting enforcement of immigration laws.

This warped definition of tolerance particularly worried me. The growing notion that tolerance means snuffing out views one disapproves of, rather than tolerating them is the root of much of the growing political division in my opinion. And not to mention, there's a big risk that this will hurt liberals in the long run. It's easy to forget that this line of thinking also empowers conservatives to snuff out views they don't like - and look at who's in control of the White House, Congress, and (likely soon to be) the Supreme Court.

[charlesism]

I wanted to counter your points by presenting a hypothetical hiring example (one employee from a certain group, and another who votes a particular way), but that gets into an argument over whether certain US government policies are racist, and that's off topic for HN.

As a general rule, I lob complaints at private companies. So I care at lot if Company X is doing ill to society (what I consider ill, at any rate). Whether the government should step in is a separate, and more dangerous, issue to me.

[manfredo]

> I wanted to counter your points by presenting a hypothetical hiring example (one employee from a certain group, and another who votes a particular way), but that gets into an argument over whether certain US government policies are racist

This is not the case, I have discussed affirmative action and discrimination without repercussions (presumably what you're talking about). No policy I'm aware of prohibits it on HN.

[charlesism]

If I ran an English business in 1968, I probably wouldn't hire an Enoch Powell supporter.

I'm fine if an employee disagrees with me over how high income tax should be, or whether or not healthcare should be privatized. People are allowed to have different views. However if I think someone is intolerant, I don't want to help them. That kind of tolerance is tolerance in name only.

I wouldn't want to associate my business with, or financially support, an employee who, say, spends the weekends rallying to kick West Indians out of the country. Whether such rallies draw sparse, or teeming crowds, doesn't make a difference to me.