Should Racial Views Get You Fired?

[GHook93]

You have racial views that are non-mainstream.

You do not share them with anyone at work. At work, you perform very well. Nobody ever has a complaint.

But, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovers your identity. They call your boss and announce that you are a "white supremacist."

You are fired on the spot.

Is this right?

In the private sector, it should be up to your employer! In the public sector, absolutely (if it can be proven)! You represent the public and get paid off their dime!

However, it needs to swing all direction. Whether it be Blacks hating on whites or Latino hating on whites shouldn't matter!

 

[manifold]

If racist views are causing you to treat customers who are a different race from your own less courteously or efficiently, then yes. You deserve to be fired.

Does that also apply to employees of the US Dept. of Agriculture who treat farmers differently based on their race?

 

[MikeK]

Would you say the same thing if he was a sex offender?

??

Are you comparing a sex offense (i.e., rape, assault, molestation) to verbal declaration or expression of opinion?

Don't be a brick. The point is, let's say the girl was 17 and the boy was 19. do they disclose that? no! All you know is he has been tagged with the "sex offender" tag. So even "IF" this is no longer the case you still want him dealt with, do you not? Try to get self righteous on someone else dipshit. Your fake outrage is lost on common sense.

Rudeness is the weakling's imitation of strength and your argument affirms that adage. Statutory rape is not among the specifications in my question to you, so your rebuttal identifies you.

 

[Unkotare]

I call white people "devils" and I haven't been fired. They don't want the lawsuit.

Are you admitting to being a racist, or just that you never made it all the way through 'Malcolm X'?

ALL people are racist. Anyone who says otherwise is also a liar.

That is just undergrad sociology bullcrap.

 

[MikeK]

ALL people are racist. Anyone who says otherwise is also a liar.

That is just undergrad sociology bullcrap.

If we can agree that the words racist and racism are so over-used their meaning has become distorted it could be he is saying ethnic discrimination is a natural tendency which is not as insidious in its effect as is bigoted persecution, which is essentialy a human political construct. All animals gravitate to members of their own species or sub-species -- and that includes we humans.

It is a natural fact that birds of a feather flock together and there is nothing malicious or unreasonable about feeling more comfortable with and around people and things which are most familiar to us. And preference for one thing does not necessarily imply antipathy for another. The factor which transforms a natural tendency into the circumstance called racism are the complicating influences of human politics and its evil aspects.

 

[Unkotare]

It is a natural fact that birds of a feather flock together .

Human beings are all the same bird, all the same feather.

 

[Wicked Jester]

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

It doesn't say 'how' is just says 'who.'

My problem with the entire scenario is lack of due process for the fired employee.

I guess I'm just amazed at the number of people who are up for a good lynching these days if they consider the cause to be in line with their own views and the lynchee is white.

I just asked cause its not everyday the Southern Poverty Law center just calls up a workplace to inform a company an employee they have is a white supremecist.

It wouldn't surprise me if they did.

But the problem lies in the fact, that if the employee is a good employee, and leaves his racist views at home and doesn't bring them to work, the employer really doesn't have grounds to fire him.

Now, being an ex-business owner, I fully believe a business should have the right to let go an employee for any reason they deem fit, too include no reason whatseover....But then, I would have never let somebod, go based on someone, too include the SPLC, calling and ratting them out. If they don't display the behavior at work, and effectively do their job, I wouldn't give a shit if they were racist or not.

 

[MikeK]

Human beings are all the same bird, all the same feather.

Not quite.

We use the word race because its meaning has become commonly recognized. But that word presents a flawed premise because it presumes there are five identified races along with the human race. An impossible concept.

The more appropriate word for the divisions of humankind, which is in academic fact a species of animal, is sub-species. I.e., there is not a human "race" but a human species within which are recognizable sub-species.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

The differences in human sub-species are relatively superficial but are as recognizable as are those differences in canine sub-species, for one example. All are essentially the same type of animal but manifest certain readily recognizable differences.

 

[Sunshine]

So what kind of comment is it when you call someone a neck? Racist?

 

[MikeK]

So what kind of comment is it when you call someone a neck? Racist?

I've never heard that one before but presuming in this example "neck" is a contraction of "redneck" I would call it a silly, idiomatic, juvenile attempt to offend.

 

[Unkotare]

Human beings are all the same bird, all the same feather.

Not quite.

We use the word race because its meaning has become commonly recognized. But that word presents a flawed premise because it presumes there are five identified races along with the human race. An impossible concept.

The more appropriate word for the divisions of humankind, which is in academic fact a species of animal, is sub-species. I.e., there is not a human "race" but a human species within which are recognizable sub-species.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

The differences in human sub-species are relatively superficial but are as recognizable as are those differences in canine sub-species, for one example. All are essentially the same type of animal but manifest certain readily recognizable differences.

Nice try 'professor' but the distinction bewteen the peoples you mentioned is - even theoretically - almost 0, and in reality less than that given the FACT that human beings always have, everywhere do, and always will mix with one another whenever physically possible.

 

[William Joyce]

Human beings are all the same bird, all the same feather.

Not quite.

We use the word race because its meaning has become commonly recognized. But that word presents a flawed premise because it presumes there are five identified races along with the human race. An impossible concept.

The more appropriate word for the divisions of humankind, which is in academic fact a species of animal, is sub-species. I.e., there is not a human "race" but a human species within which are recognizable sub-species.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

The differences in human sub-species are relatively superficial but are as recognizable as are those differences in canine sub-species, for one example. All are essentially the same type of animal but manifest certain readily recognizable differences.

Nice try 'professor' but the distinction bewteen the peoples you mentioned is - even theoretically - almost 0, and in reality less than that given the FACT that human beings always have, everywhere do, and always will mix with one another whenever physically possible.

I just heard on NPR -- of all places -- that whites have Neanderthal genes, while blacks do not. That doesn't tell me that the distinction between peoples is "almost 0".

It tells me that we're very, very different kinds of hominids.

Why is that so hard to accept?

 

[Unkotare]

It's not hard to accept, it's just untrue.



http://wupa.wustl.edu/record_archive/1998/10-15-98/articles/races.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21995-2004Sep14.html

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2005/01/17/7317.aspx

 

[MikeK]

Human beings are all the same bird, all the same feather.

Not quite.

We use the word race because its meaning has become commonly recognized. But that word presents a flawed premise because it presumes there are five identified races along with the human race. An impossible concept.

The more appropriate word for the divisions of humankind, which is in academic fact a species of animal, is sub-species. I.e., there is not a human "race" but a human species within which are recognizable sub-species.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

The differences in human sub-species are relatively superficial but are as recognizable as are those differences in canine sub-species, for one example. All are essentially the same type of animal but manifest certain readily recognizable differences.

Nice try 'professor' but the distinction bewteen the peoples you mentioned is - even theoretically - almost 0, and in reality less than that given the FACT that human beings always have, everywhere do, and always will mix with one another whenever physically possible.

First, human beings, as with all other animal species, "mix" only when brought together by circumstances outside their free will. The phrase, birds of a feather flock together, is not simply poetic. All animals actively seek to associate with others with whom they are most familiar. And it's not "racism." It's natural.

And the taxonomic distinction between peoples is quite a bit more than zero. Otherwise how to you know the difference between Blacks, Whites and Asians? Is it difficult for you to determine?

 

[Unkotare]

First, human beings, as with all other animal species, "mix" only when brought together by circumstances outside their free will.

Wrong. Completely wrong. All of human history proves the contrary. You don't need to use the word "mix" in quotations because in reality it is not mixing for one species to breed with itself as nature surely intended.

 

[Unkotare]

All animals actively seek to associate with others with whom they are most familiar.

And that would include all humans with each other.

 

[Immanuel]

Fuckin A, I was in the Military for 7 years and none of that shit was tolerated sexual harassment, racism, religion etc if you want to be an asshole racist sexist bigot, do it on your own time .

I think that is the gist of this thread. -People who have views that run contrary to those acceptable in the workplace, but who are not generally known to have them and who don't flaunt them in the workplace.

You have racial views that are non-mainstream.

You do not share them with anyone at work. At work, you perform very well. Nobody ever has a complaint.

But, the Southern Poverty Law Center discovers your identity. They call your boss and announce that you are a "white supremacist."

You are fired on the spot.

Is this right?

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

How else?

He refused to send them donations despite 50 unsolicited letters/emails requesting he donate

$25_____ $50_____ $100_____ $250_____ $500_____ $1000_____ Other_____

His refusal is proof positive that he is a racist and must be outed.

Immie

 

[High_Gravity]

Not quite.

We use the word race because its meaning has become commonly recognized. But that word presents a flawed premise because it presumes there are five identified races along with the human race. An impossible concept.

The more appropriate word for the divisions of humankind, which is in academic fact a species of animal, is sub-species. I.e., there is not a human "race" but a human species within which are recognizable sub-species.

1) Mongoloid (Asian and American Indian)
2) Caucasoid (European)
3) Australoid (Australian and oceanic)
4) Negroid (east African black)
5) Capoid (south African black)

The differences in human sub-species are relatively superficial but are as recognizable as are those differences in canine sub-species, for one example. All are essentially the same type of animal but manifest certain readily recognizable differences.

Nice try 'professor' but the distinction bewteen the peoples you mentioned is - even theoretically - almost 0, and in reality less than that given the FACT that human beings always have, everywhere do, and always will mix with one another whenever physically possible.

First, human beings, as with all other animal species, "mix" only when brought together by circumstances outside their free will. The phrase, birds of a feather flock together, is not simply poetic. All animals actively seek to associate with others with whom they are most familiar. And it's not "racism." It's natural.

And the taxonomic distinction between peoples is quite a bit more than zero. Otherwise how to you know the difference between Blacks, Whites and Asians? Is it difficult for you to determine?

Are you trying to say people of different races be together because they don't have any choice?

 

[High_Gravity]

I think that is the gist of this thread. -People who have views that run contrary to those acceptable in the workplace, but who are not generally known to have them and who don't flaunt them in the workplace.

I guess my question would be is how did they find out the employee was a racist?

How else?

He refused to send them donations despite 50 unsolicited letters/emails requesting he donate

$25_____ $50_____ $100_____ $250_____ $500_____ $1000_____ Other_____

His refusal is proof positive that he is a racist and must be outed.

Immie

 

[Immanuel]

Just think if this yidnar idiot worked with you, YOU ALL would be turning him in in hopes of him getting fired I bet!

In that case, the employee would not have been keeping his opinions to himself as was specified in the OP.

Immie

If he actually "WAS" keeping to himself this thread wouldn't exist. His problem is, that he spends so much time being racist, he can no longer recognize it himself.

Actually, your post is as this is a hypothetical. Said hypothetical specifically mentioned that he kept his opinions to himself.

I actually doubt that a racist could/would keep it to himself, but seeing as how this is a hypothetical, we have to take the "facts" as they are laid out to us.

Immie