Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Michael Hardner

Spam Cop
  • Content Count

    31,941
  • Joined

  • Days Won

    23

Michael Hardner last won the day on June 15

Michael Hardner had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

628 Excellent

2 Followers

About Michael Hardner

  • Rank
    Master of my Club
  • Birthday 11/20/1936

Contact Methods

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Toronto

Recent Profile Visitors

37,293 profile views
  1. 1. You can fire them if you don't think they represent your organization well. Can you fire someone for openly disagreeing with accepted norms of discrimination ? How about legal definitions ? What law, exactly, protects people who believe such things ? There is no law that says "this view is acceptable and that one is disgusting" that I can think of. Those are value judgements in the purview of the employer. I'm pretty sure if you went on about Trump all the time, and you worked for Ben and Jerry's they would not renew your contract. Yes the CEO in your example would be fired, depending on the context. 2. No, I'm saying they are arbiters of social currency and sometimes employment. 3. But McCarthyism was legal. So are you asking me if it's legal to fire someone for outspoken and unpopular views, because I think it is and that's what the ruling said.
  2. 1. I guess it's a question for the employer. I'm pretty sure they were embarrassed to have this person around in any case. You're right, we don't really know. 2. But on a moral plane, you have an employer who is embarrassed by the opinions of an employee who is public-facing, which is not protected by employment law. Do I feel differently about an anti-semite vs. whatever this person was ? Yes, I do. Does it matter ? If people think it does, then it does. Please look at the history of McCarthyism and what it took to turn the public tide against peoples' private opinions being put on trial and having their lives ruined. And this was about private opinions. If you think it does make a difference, then you can try to convince people to have empathy for the person who has outlying opinions. I am definitely sympathetic to outliers but public sentiment is what drives these things. What happened to all that opposition to gay marriage ? Public sentiment changed.
  3. 1. 3. Yes, the media provides angertainment, which doesn't serve the true information needs of the public. 2. Well that's just silly.
  4. 1. 2. Fine, but if it's a problem it's an old one. People have long been fired for having objectionable (to the majority) opinions. It has only been publicly protested when it's part of a witch hunt, to expose privately held positions ... as with the McCarthy era. I don't think that this flies within the radar of a new illiberal attitude at all, except that the subject of the opinion is a new one. Explain to me why this is different than an anti-Semite getting fired from a job where they serve or just work for the public. 3. I don't think we disagree on this so much. I am saying institutions are the focus, and you are saying that there's a general atmosphere of intolerance under which institutions have been corrupted. I agree with your statement as well.
  5. I misread what you meant when you said it doesn't exist.
  6. The problem with identity politics, or maybe one problem, is it's 100% rhetoric. But economic issues aren't as easy to discuss. Basically everyone knows racism is a thing, that it's a bad thing, and that we have inherited a problem that we need to work on. Like patriotism, there are no points to be lost blah blah blahing about it, only time.
  7. I admit that I exaggerated and reacted knee-kick style to Shady's claim: "Which really means, it doesn’t exist."
  8. Well that would mean every politician who did that was a turd! Spoiler: they are
  9. Not if it gets the right kind of voter to vote for him. Nobody who counts is calling for him to step down.
  10. And... A bunch of middle-aged white guys posting to each other, agreeing that there's no racism is about the best description of the relevance of this forum btw.
  11. Doesn't sound like my style. I would probably just ask if you think racism really doesn't exist. I also threw you a bone that 'systemic' is too vague to be meaningful, but you forgot that part.
  12. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harry_S._Crowe This case was the origin of CUAT. Professor Crowe's political affiliations were not deemed sufficiently orthodox for the administration, so he was removed. He won the case and today we have CUAT.
  13. I don't know what could be done about such a letter. ( The one referred to in Katz's piece ) I suppose that the Harper's letter would support an open discussion of what was proposed, and Joshua Katz would say that that hasn't happened. I didn't see any instances of illiberal ISM in that. Rather, a super wealthy private university thinks that it can appear valorous by offering extra perks to black faculty and students. They could shut down the school and give the money to scholarships for the poor, I guess, if they want to really help inequality. I'm still looking into Canadian cases, covered in academic Press or established Canadian newspapers.
×
×
  • Create New...