• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Ed George Soros and others targetted by Terrorist

If my coworker thinks the capital gains tax should be 2% more than I think it should or disagrees with me about whether or not school vouchers are a good thing I refuse to work with him, I'm the jackass.

If my coworker things an entire broad demographic of people are subhumans who don't deserve civil rights and should be wiped off the face of Earth and I refuse to work with him, I'm not the jackass.

Tolerance is not an absolute. It can't be or it causes a paradox. This is not new information to anyone.
 
Slings and Arrows said:
"The President of the United States is always welcome. I am a citizen, he is my president. He is always welcome.”

-- Rabbi Jeffrey Myers (The Tree of Life's spiritual leader) Oct 29, 2018
Click to expand...

DailyCaller said:
Tree of Life Rabbi Jeffrey Myers declined to blame anyone for the shooting at his synagogue despite hints from a CNN anchor that President Donald Trump is to blame.

During a Monday interview on CNN, anchor Alisyn Camerota asked Myers if he blames anyone “beyond the gunman” for Saturday’s shooting that claimed the lives of 11 congregants.
Click to expand...

Why is the Daily Caller so overly sensitive about Trump getting blamed for inciting hate?
 
JoeMorgue said:
If my coworker thinks the capital gains tax should be 2% more than I think it should or disagrees with me about whether or not school vouchers are a good thing I refuse to work with him, I'm the jackass.

If my coworker things an entire broad demographic of people are subhumans who don't deserve civil rights and should be wiped off the face of Earth and I refuse to work with him, I'm not the jackass.

Tolerance is not an absolute. It can't be or it causes a paradox. This is not new information to anyone.
Click to expand...

But is there anyway to navigate that in a way that isn't a matter of how many people feel one way?

What if there are enough of them that we have crossed the threshold that you are the ahole in the second scenario?
 
Four Bullets Fired Into Republican Headquarters in Florida

Another day, another act of terror from violent leftists.

WFTV reported that according to police, at least four bullets were shot through the window of the Republican headquarters. The Republican Chair called the person who did this “sick” and said it’s probably a Democrat who caused the damage.

-- The Gateway Pundit (Oct 29, 2018)
Click to expand...



Antifa/Democrats doing some last minute campaigning before the midterms.
 
Last edited:
PhantomWolf said:
But this is the point, you can't just assume it.



And if they came out and clearly showed that they would be unable to act effectively as a LEO or an ICE because of their beliefs, then you could prevent them because they were not able to do the job correctly, but you can't just assume that they can't do it according to protocols.
Click to expand...

US LEOs undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation. Its not foolproof, but it certainly helps in the screening out of applicants with unacceptable personal traits.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cop-doc/201709/pre-employment-psychological-screening-cops

"Can police psychologists do a better job screening out applicants with racist, homophobic, or misogynistic attitudes? For the answer I turned to several colleagues with extensive experience in preemployment psychological screening. Their consensus is that the best place for ferreting out negative attitudes is a comprehensive background investigation supplemented by a polygraph. Because preemployment psychological screening is based on self-disclosure, it is unlikely that applicants who knowingly harbor biases will admit this to an examining psychologist and jeopardize their chances at the job. On the other hand, even a thorough background investigation and a polygraph are not fail safe. What's to prevent employers, co-workers, neighbors and family members, who are invested in the applicant getting the job, from covering up any problematic behavior they have observed?"

"The second best place to dig deeply into the applicant's mind-set is the in-person interview. Most screening psychologists use tests that measure tolerance, social competence, cynicism, and teamwork. While not specifically targeting racist, misogynistic or homophobic attitudes, the results can point to problematic attitudes. When these attitudes are uncovered in the interview, or corroborate behavior identified by the background investigation and/or the polygraph, then there are grounds to find the candidate unsuitable."​
 
smartcooky said:
US LEOs undergo a comprehensive psychological evaluation. Its not foolproof, but it certainly helps in the screening out of applicants with unacceptable personal traits.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/cop-doc/201709/pre-employment-psychological-screening-cops

"Can police psychologists do a better job screening out applicants with racist, homophobic, or misogynistic attitudes? For the answer I turned to several colleagues with extensive experience in preemployment psychological screening. Their consensus is that the best place for ferreting out negative attitudes is a comprehensive background investigation supplemented by a polygraph. Because preemployment psychological screening is based on self-disclosure, it is unlikely that applicants who knowingly harbor biases will admit this to an examining psychologist and jeopardize their chances at the job. On the other hand, even a thorough background investigation and a polygraph are not fail safe. What's to prevent employers, co-workers, neighbors and family members, who are invested in the applicant getting the job, from covering up any problematic behavior they have observed?"

"The second best place to dig deeply into the applicant's mind-set is the in-person interview. Most screening psychologists use tests that measure tolerance, social competence, cynicism, and teamwork. While not specifically targeting racist, misogynistic or homophobic attitudes, the results can point to problematic attitudes. When these attitudes are uncovered in the interview, or corroborate behavior identified by the background investigation and/or the polygraph, then there are grounds to find the candidate unsuitable."​
Click to expand...

Seems like drumming out officers with Nazi tattoos would be a pretty easy criteria:

https://www.phillyvoice.com/former-philly-cop-nazi-tattoo-ian-hans-lichterman-navy-yard-police

http://www.wbur.org/news/2018/08/02/worcester-nazi-tattoo-allegation
 
PhantomWolf said:
We're talking about the US, so consider that law only.


Racism is entirely a political view. Politics is more than which party you support, it's a systems of beliefs on how society should operate, and racism is a part of that.



This is pure opinion, not fact. Please provide evidence that a racist cannot uphold the law the same as a non-racist.
Click to expand...
Would it be illegal in the USA? I thought you only had certain protections against discrimination of certain classes, e.g race?
 
Darat said:
Would it be illegal in the USA? I thought you only had certain protections against discrimination of certain classes, e.g race?
Click to expand...

The law only prohibits certain forms of discrimination (dependent on context and usually protected class basis) by private actors. But the government itself is far more restricted in how it can discriminate than private citizens are. Government discrimination may run afoul of first amendment or equal protection issues even in the absence of an explicitly protected class.

Of course, what is supposed to be off limits for the government isn't always the same as what they can't get away with. It costs money to challenge the government in court, and that may not be worth it to a plaintiff even if they win their case. On the specific issue of tattoos, the government might be successful in arguing that regardless of personal beliefs, the visibility of an exposed Nazi tattoo on an officer creates a problem that the government has a compelling interest in preventing, making the discrimination legal. They would have a harder time making a similar argument against an officer who privately espoused racist views but did not appear to let that affect their job performance.
 
Darat said:
Would it be illegal in the USA? I thought you only had certain protections against discrimination of certain classes, e.g race?
Click to expand...

There is no Constitutional protection. States have different laws with most having some types of protections. Federal employees are protected against coercion of political activity.
 
Darat said:
Would it be illegal in the USA? I thought you only had certain protections against discrimination of certain classes, e.g race?
Click to expand...

Sure, but politics is not a protected class. That was why the guy who claimed he was thrown out of a bar for wearing a trump hat had to claim it was a part of his religion.

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/3kaxq5/this-guy-claims-his-maga-hat-is-part-of-his-spiritual-beliefs-vgtrn

I know where will the cops get recuits if we actually blocked all the nazis? Well that is hopefully something we will find out someday.
 
Darat said:
Would it be illegal in the USA? I thought you only had certain protections against discrimination of certain classes, e.g race?
Click to expand...

For private employers they have to abide by the usual race, sex, age, religion, protections in the entire US, and political protection varies from State to State, but the Government, which includes all Federal and local Law Enforcement, has to abide by the 1st Amendment as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom