Is being intolerant of the intolerant hypocritical?

[beancounter]

Mozilla exec out of job for gay rights intolerance. Some think that’s intolerant.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...erance-some-think-thats-intolerant/?tid=hp_mm

“At the heart of the move is a fundamental contradiction: Eich’s foes disapproved of Eich’s intolerance for LGBT people. But in the end they could not tolerate Eich’s opinions, which for years he kept private and, by all accounts, did not bring into the workplace.”

 

[Yokel]

Opposition to homosexual marriage doesn't make him any more 'intolerant' than those of so-called 'liberal' / 'left-wing' opinions who for years have opposed heterosexual marriage.

 

[Mischief]

Opposition to homosexual marriage doesn't make him any more 'intolerant' than those of so-called 'liberal' / 'left-wing' opinions who for years have opposed heterosexual marriage.

Goodness, I wasn't aware of a movement to make heterosexual marriage illegal. Could you cite some sources?

 

[SummerRain]

I think the idea that society is becoming more tolerant, except for intolerance, is really interesting. There was a lecture at my university about how an increasing number of campaigns/policies are denying freedom of expression under the guise of preventing intolerance - things like campaigns to stop selling The Sun because of page 3, and not giving a platform to far-right speakers (including racist speakers, Islamic extremists).

I think it's a difficult problem for me personally (to think about), because I want to balance maximising peoples freedoms with stopping the infringement on other peoples freedoms and encouraging hate, discrimination and institutional racism/sexism.

On the whole, I tend to err on the side of maximising peoples freedoms - I think it's dangerous to stop people deemed "intolerant" or discriminatory from speaking/expressing/sharing their views. Most importantly because I think there is a lot of inherent value in freedom of expression and the right to voice your opinions and have your own beliefs - even if other people think they're wrong/abhorrent/etc, and on a more practical/selfish note I think that freedom is important for progressive views (i.e. views I agree with!) to have the room to grow and fight for what they believe is right. If it's okay to silence far-right points of view, whose to say the same wont soon be applied to far left views, or any other views that whoever makes the rules disagrees with?

In short...

I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it.

So, I think it's wrong to sack somebody because of their beliefs. Full stop. Even if I think those beliefs are awful. (As long as they don't affect somebodies work, i.e. they're not being discriminatory within their job, giving inappropriate advice to people in their care, using their job as a platform for their personal politics, bullings/mistreating fellow members of staff/customers, etc...).

 

[Yokel]

Goodness, I wasn't aware of a movement to make heterosexual marriage illegal. Could you cite some sources?

I didn't say there was a 'movement'; if you want any 'sources' then read the Guardian. I am talking about the intolerant so-called 'liberal left' - usually those who belong to the professional middle-class - who have always been hostile to heterosexual marriage; as distinct from genuine working-class left-wingers, the vast majority of whom come from traditional backgrounds.

 

[Mischief]

I didn't say there was a 'movement'; if you want any 'sources' then read the Guardian. I am talking about the intolerant so-called 'liberal left' - usually those who belong to the professional middle-class - who have always been hostile to heterosexual marriage; as distinct from genuine working-class left-wingers, the vast majority of whom come from traditional backgrounds.

The professional middle class liberal left have "always" been hostile to heterosexual marriage?! They want it to be illegal in the same way that social conservatives want same sex marriage to be illegal? Even if that were true in GB (which I don't believe - even in GB, marriage has been the default arrangement until recently), it's certainly not true of the rest of the world.

 

[Mischief]

So, I think it's wrong to sack somebody because of their beliefs. Full stop. Even if I think those beliefs are awful. (As long as they don't affect somebodies work, i.e. they're not being discriminatory within their job, giving inappropriate advice to people in their care, using their job as a platform for their personal politics, bullings/mistreating fellow members of staff/customers, etc...).

In the U.S., absent an employment contract (either individual or a union contract), people can be sacked or any reason (other than for belonging to a protected class) or no reason at all. Certainly I was aware my entire working life that if I did anything in my personal life that ran counter to the interests of my employer (which interests included keeping their clients happy), my professional life would suffer. That meant that I needed to keep my atheism to myself, that anything I did to support pro-choice was at potential risk to my job if certain clients became aware of it, etc.

It's naïve to think that your personal life won't affect your professional life if someone happens to disagree with it enough to potentially affect your employer's image and/or profits. It's the marketplace at work, and no different than when we veg*ns refuse to support certain businesses.

 

[kibbleforlola]

It's naïve to think that your personal life won't affect your professional life if someone happens to disagree with it enough to potentially affect your employer's image and/or profits. It's the marketplace at work, and no different than when we veg*ns refuse to support certain businesses.

We were recently talking in one of my classes about biases in hiring (specifically in academia, but it could be applied elsewhere). There's a list floating around of the 15 most common illegal questions asked on job interviews. I'll see if I can find it. But yeah, they aren't supposed to ask about thinks like political leanings and religious views, etc., but it still happens. And unfortunately most people only have a vague awareness of what is legal/not legal in interview settings, so they get away with it.

 

[SummerRain]

In the U.S., absent an employment contract (either individual or a union contract), people can be sacked or any reason (other than for belonging to a protected class) or no reason at all. Certainly I was aware my entire working life that if I did anything in my personal life that ran counter to the interests of my employer (which interests included keeping their clients happy), my professional life would suffer. That meant that I needed to keep my atheism to myself, that anything I did to support pro-choice was at potential risk to my job if certain clients became aware of it, etc.

I think that's wrong. I don't think you can sack somebody for no reason at all in the UK, but I don't know a lot about employment law (or anything, to be honest). I don't think people should be sacked for their beliefs.

It's naïve to think that your personal life won't affect your professional life if someone happens to disagree with it enough to potentially affect your employer's image and/or profits. It's the marketplace at work, and no different than when we veg*ns refuse to support certain businesses.

I see what you mean. I guess then, I mean, as long as they don't directly affect somebodies work, such as the examples I gave. If a customer/client takes offense to me because I'm a woman with a career, that's not my fault. I feel the same way if a customer/client took offense because of my beliefs. If you bring up your beliefs inappropriately I think that's unprofessional, and potentially a thing to be reprimanded for. But if they ask you directly, I don't think you should need to lie/hide your beliefs.

I looked it up. To be dismissed in the UK your employer needs a valid reason they can justify, they need to have acted reasonably, they need to have been consistent with other employees in the same situation and investigated the situation fully. You can be dismissed for not doing your job properly, for long-term illness that means you cannot do your job, redundancy, gross misconduct (eg violence), if employing you would break the law, it's impossible to keep on employing you , you refuse to accept company re-organisation, or you go to jail, etc. It's likely to be unfair dismissal if you: asked for flexible working; refused to give up legal rights; joined a trade union; etc.

 

[beancounter]

There really is no way around it. Being intolerant of intolerant people is in and of itself intolerant.

And being intolerant for the "right" reasons, is very subjective.

 

[Mischief]

There really is no way around it. Being intolerant of intolerant people is in and of itself intolerant.

And being intolerant for the "right" reasons, is very subjective.

You're assuming all intolerance is equal, which is a not-very-well-thought-out position that leads to a moral vacuum.

I'm intolerant of cruelty. I assume most members here are, otherwise they wouldn't be veg*n.

Yes, I guess you can claim that whether intolerance is based on the "right" reasons is subjective; you can claim that intolerance toward murder, pedophilia, rape, etc. is just as subjective as intolerance toward bigotry - it makes just as much sense. As I said, your argument leads to a moral vacuum.

 

[Second Summer]

I think it makes more sense to talk about this issue in terms of liberties. My liberties have their natural limits when they start to infringe on the liberties of others. Therefore we can say that our tolerance similarly should have a natural limit - we should tolerate something only as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of ourselves or others.

 

[Clueless Git]

There really is no way around it. Being intolerant of intolerant people is in and of itself intolerant.

Exactly so, BC.

I remember a Brit politician being credited with saying something to the effect of;

"I hate what he has to say but I will defend to the death his right to say it. That is the price of free speech".

I can't remember who coined the counter phrase "All things in moderation, including moderation" though.

 

[ledboots]

So let me get this right. In 2008, this old CEO gave 1000$ to a Defense of Marriage (anti-same sex marriage) political group. In 2008, Obama voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and was anti-same sex marriage as well. Many people, like the President, have revised their views in the past few years.

They didn't even give this CEO a chance to respond before sacking him? Freedom of speech, my ***.

 

[Clueless Git]

I think it makes more sense to talk about this issue in terms of liberties. My liberties have their natural limits when they start to infringe on the liberties of others. Therefore we can say that our tolerance similarly should have a natural limit - we should tolerate something only as long as it doesn't infringe on the liberties of ourselves or others.

You're straight into "one mans meat is another mans poison" territory there, IS.

I'm not looking forward to the annual 'negotiations' with Ms Bongo-Bongo music who lives on the other side of my fence.

She is keen on exercising her 'liberty' to set up her speakers in her garden and turn them up full blast.

I am equaly keen to defend my liberty not to have her bass thud move all the ornaments around in my house.

It's a conflict of liberties that we have never quite managed to fully sort out.

 

[Spang]

So let me get this right. In 2008, this old CEO gave 1000$ to a Defense of Marriage (anti-same sex marriage) political group. In 2008, Obama voted for the Defense of Marriage Act and was anti-same sex marriage as well. Many people, like the President, have revised their views in the past few years.

They didn't even give this CEO a chance to respond before sacking him? Freedom of speech, my ***.

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Mozilla is not Congress.

 

[ledboots]

The First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Mozilla is not Congress.

If the CE O of Mozilla was fired for stating in 2008 that same sex marriage *is* acceptable, would that be okay?

 

[Spang]

If the CE O of Mozilla was fired for stating in 2008 that same sex marriage *is* acceptable, would that be okay?

It'd be a bad business decision, but if a company doesn't want a non-anti-LGBT person heading its company, it should can him or her.

When a company hires a hateful bigot to be its CEO, it says a lot, and none of it good.

 

[ledboots]

I will go on record that I was in favor of same sex marriage far before 2008. I campaigned against Florida's ridiculous amendment banning it a decade before that. This CEO is a old guy who donated $1000 to a stupid political cause and then is ousted 6 years later for a political opinion.

I agree with this part of the wsj article: " But Eich’s resignation drew just as much criticism as his stance on gay marriage, including criticism from those who disagree with his politics.

Andrew Sullivan, a gay writer and proponent of same-sex marriage rights, wrote : " The whole episode disgusts me - as it should disgust anyone interested in a tolerant and diverse society. If this is the gay rights movement today - hounding our opponents with a fanaticism more like the religious right than anyone else - then count me out.”

 

[Freesia]

Racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist people suck. Perhaps it is intolerant not to like them but I would rather be intolerant than be on the wrong side of history. So there.