Israel-Hamas War 2023

[garbon]

How does ignoring antisemitic or racist remarks figure into the giving people basic respect idea? You want society to make the effort to not be influenced in dealings with a racist individual due to their racism but you do not expect the racist individual to show basic respect toward the race they openly agitate against.

Well first of all:

Finally "tolerate" doesn't mean "ignore" or "agree with".  It's just you temper your response.

You teach the racist, the anti-semite, the misogynist, whomever respect - by showing respect to them.

I mean this isn't some brand new idea - it's the Golden Rule.

Sounds like a lovely world you posit for racists. Say racist shit without impunity while the target of your invective should not only put up with it but be respectful.

[garbon]

I tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.

I mean this respectfully but this feels like a point of view born out of privilege.

[Threviel]

Mob justice is often satisfying, but we try to avoid it for a reason.

[garbon]

Mob justice is often satisfying, but we try to avoid it for a reason.

https://justicecentres.go.ug/glossary/mob-justice/

???

Also, I thought the theory being advanced was in the vein of 'sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me' which is why people should just shine on when someone says something racist.

But now it is beyond the pale if several other people use their words to call for someone to be fired from their job because they think words can actually hurt?

[Tamas]

I am sorry but our society is choke full of societal peer pressure forcing behaviours. Some of these make it into law but most don't.

I mean, FFS, many offices have bloody dress codes. Nobody is up in arms about the freedom to wear flipflops to work, stopping that isn't tyranny, but being able to select what level of hateful dangerous asshatery you allow in the company you own, that is?

Come on guys.

[Josquius]

I don't think it's irrelevant at all.
Not all racism is the same.
There's a huge difference between those who are used to different words, now considered racist, and accidentally use them meaning no malice; and somebody who knows fine well they're being racist and thats their goal in setting out to cause harm.

Irrelevant as we weren't have a discussion about the most mild form of racism. Bringing up the most mild version feels like an attempt to shut down the conversation.

Its easier to show difference when speaking of extremes.
In the case being talked about you have people expressing solidarity with Palestine getting the same treatment as a raging committed anti semite.
The punishment should suit the scale of the crime.

[OttoVonBismarck]

You guys need to quit conflating being fired with concepts like "mob justice." Employers cannot, and should not, be required to employ people who would be a disruption to their business and even a potential harm to their customers. The idea that an employer who is a mental health therapy organization should be required to employ someone who is antisemitic and openly so, is absurd. No one would bat an eye if a similar org fired a guy who was on the local news saying "I hate n*ggers", imagine trying to book black patients with someone like that.

The first amendment can never be a restraint on non-governmental action.

[Josquius]

You guys need to quit conflating being fired with concepts like "mob justice." Employers cannot, and should not, be required to employ people who would be a disruption to their business and even a potential harm to their customers. The idea that an employer who is a mental health therapy organization should be required to employ someone who is antisemitic and openly so, is absurd. No one would bat an eye if a similar org fired a guy who was on the local news saying "I hate n*ggers", imagine trying to book black patients with someone like that.

The first amendment can never be a restraint on non-governmental action.

That isn't what we're talking about here though.
It isn't your employee is constantly going on about how much he hates Jewish people so he might be a threat to your Jewish clientele- not employing such a person is wise.
Its more this person said something that we have decided is anti-semitic so you better fire them OR ELSE.

[OttoVonBismarck]

The employer gets to make that decision. This isn't communist Europe.

[Josquius]

The employer gets to make that decision. This isn't communist Europe.

Except it isn't a decision they're making of their own free will when you've got a pressure group making noise about it.
Unless the employee is really special it just makes sense in anarchist America to cut off the funky looking mole on the off chance it possibly might be cancer.
 No need to double check they actually are what the pressure group say they are.

If the intent really was for it to be the employers decision you'd inform them of the comments discretely without making a public song and dance about it.

[OttoVonBismarck]

They did make it of their own free will.

[Gups]

And most employers have codes about social media posting. No doubt at all that if we found out about one of our employers posting stuff like that online, they would be suspended and ultimately sacked irrespective if the wider world knew they were our employee. Our brand and reputation is far too important.

[DGuller]

I am sorry but our society is choke full of societal peer pressure forcing behaviours. Some of these make it into law but most don't.

I mean, FFS, many offices have bloody dress codes. Nobody is up in arms about the freedom to wear flipflops to work, stopping that isn't tyranny, but being able to select what level of hateful dangerous asshatery you allow in the company you own, that is?

Come on guys.

Isn't a dress code outside of work, on your personal time, a more apt analogy?  I think people would indeed bat an eye if the employer says that you can't wear flip flops while vacationing on the beach.  The speech that people are getting canned for presumably wasn't done at work.

[Josquius]

They did make it of their own free will.

"Eat the sandwich or I shoot your kid in the face."
You really think you chose to eat that sandwich under your own free will?

[Jacob]

I tend to agree with the Brain and BB on this, even if I do get some visceral satisfaction from seeing people I dislike getting metaphorically whacked upside the head.

I mean this respectfully but this feels like a point of view born out of privilege.

Quite possibly.

My point of view is mostly informed by the dynamics of social media rather than specifics of the transgression.

I don't believe I am in position of significant privilege when it comes to social media.