Poland criminalizes accusing the country of complicity during the holocaust

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2018, 07:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A law about pronouns is not productive. There is no way I would hire anyone who wants their own pronoun under that law.  As an employer why take the risk?

"Hello my name is Jennifer"

"Hi Bob. Nice to meet you, Bob. You folks meet this guy I just hired? His name is Bob"



You're right, it's a big risk whenever you hire someone to purposefully and repeatedly call them by the wrong name.

[GMDino]

(02-09-2018, 07:48 AM)StLucieBengal Wrote: A law about pronouns is not productive. There is no way I would hire anyone who wants their own pronoun under that law.  As an employer why take the risk?

Because it triggers you.

Rather than just hire someone good for the job it has to be someone who also falls under your version of what is "right".

Personally I find that sad that a libertarian would do that.

[hollodero]

(02-08-2018, 01:05 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I always appreciate yous posts, even when I don't agree with them, as you bring a perspective that we, as Americans, lack.  De-nazification was absolutely a sound policy.  As it has served its purpose it has been ended.  The reasons behind the laws that still exist are no longer valid.  I realize that Europe, as a whole, does not have the tradition of free speech that we have here, nor is this right enshrined in the founding documents of the national governments there.  I have to say that I think you're wrong about the "slippery slope" though.  I only need to see how some here are attempting to erode the right to free speech in this country to realize how important this right is.

My slippery slope remark just intended to describe the reality in my country or Germany and others. Which is that the Nazi Prohibition Acts did not lead to such a slope for 70 years now.
Also, I do not think we're way behind the US regarding free speech. It's in our constitution (Austria/Germany,  don't know about all the others), we just have this one notable exception. - The free speech aspect is not taken as an absolute anyway, it isn't in the US either. Aside from that strange "don't yell fire in a theatre" example, there are other things I'm not allowed to express freely, like slandering someone or sedition or shouting obscenities. In that sense, it seems like no big deal to add things like holocaust denial to these things.

I'm actually, as I guess I said, torn on that one. I'm all for free speech. The problem is that it's tough to be in favor of Nazis being allowed to freely be Nazis just to please that sacred cow that isn't that 100% sacred in the first place. Also I wouldn't necessarily say these laws serve no purpose anymore. Nazism is deeply enshrined in some people's concience still, it takes more than one generation dying away to get rid of this.
Also, if we were to overthrow these laws foreign nations would frown upon us. Most of these laws were ordered by the victors - so in a sense, you.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 09:43 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: "Hello my name is Jennifer"

"Hi Bob. Nice to meet you, Bob. You folks meet this guy I just hired? His name is Bob"



You're right, it's a big risk whenever you hire someone to purposefully and repeatedly call them by the wrong name.

(02-09-2018, 09:54 AM)GMDino Wrote: Because it triggers you.

Rather than just hire someone good for the job it has to be someone who also falls under your version of what is "right".

Personally I find that sad that a libertarian would do that.

When either of you have to actually hire someone let me know.

If bob is pretending to be jennifer then ofc that won’t go far with me. Bob won’t be hired.

[GMDino]

(02-09-2018, 12:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When either of you have to actually hire someone let me know.  

If bob is pretending to be jennifer then ofc that won’t go far with me.    Bob won’t be hired.

Just hired someone last week.  Nice guy.

Passed a pre-screening drug test, has his own transportation and can/wants to do the job.  His private life and what he says his name is is up to him.

Of course I do not own my own business like you do, but I have to play by the company rules.

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2018, 12:15 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: When either of you have to actually hire someone let me know.  

If bob is pretending to be jennifer then ofc that won’t go far with me.    Bob won’t be hired.

Does one have to have experience hiring people to know how hard it is to not repeatedly and purposefully call people by the wrong name?

I'll keep that in mind when I call all 100 of my students the right name every single day. 

[*michaelsean*]

(02-09-2018, 10:11 AM)hollodero Wrote: My slippery slope remark just intended to describe the reality in my country or Germany and others. Which is that the Nazi Prohibition Acts did not lead to such a slope for 70 years now.
Also, I do not think we're way behind the US regarding free speech. It's in our constitution (Austria/Germany,  don't know about all the others), we just have this one notable exception. - The free speech aspect is not taken as an absolute anyway, it isn't in the US either. Aside from that strange "don't yell fire in a theatre" example, there are other things I'm not allowed to express freely, like slandering someone or sedition or shouting obscenities. In that sense, it seems like no big deal to add things like holocaust denial to these things.

I'm actually, as I guess I said, torn on that one. I'm all for free speech. The problem is that it's tough to be in favor of Nazis being allowed to freely be Nazis just to please that sacred cow that isn't that 100% sacred in the first place. Also I wouldn't necessarily say these laws serve no purpose anymore. Nazism is deeply enshrined in some people's concience still, it takes more than one generation dying away to get rid of this.
Also, if we were to overthrow these laws foreign nations would frown upon us. Most of these laws were ordered by the victors - so in a sense, you.

Slander isn't illegal.  It can just wind up in a civil suit.

Also I don't see free speech as a sacred cow.  I have free speech because nobody else has the right to tell me I don't.  Limitations are meant to protect other people and that should be all.  

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 12:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Just hired someone last week.  Nice guy.

Passed a pre-screening drug test, has his own transportation and can/wants to do the job.  His private life and what he says his name is is up to him.

Of course I do not own my own business like you do, but I have to play by the company rules.

So basically you don’t have to absorb any of the risk in case this dude demands to be called Sheila.

I imagine your decision making changes once you are on he hook for any lawsuits.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 01:40 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Does one have to have experience hiring people to know how hard it is to not repeatedly and purposefully call people by the wrong name?

I'll keep that in mind when I call all 100 of my students the right name every single day. 

Like is said when you are the one on the hook for any bs lawsuits then come back and let me know how much risk you are willing to accept.

It’s easy to act like it’s no big deal when you have no skin in the game.

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2018, 04:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Like is said when you are the one on the hook for any bs lawsuits then come back and let me know how much risk you  are willing to accept.  

It’s easy to act like it’s no big deal when you have no skin in the game.

It's easy to act like it's not a big deal because it's really easy to not repeatedly and purposefully call someone by the wrong name.

I get that you dislike trans people, but it's not hard to resist the urge to purposefully call anybody by the wrong name. If you find yourself struggling to not consciously harass people, maybe you shouldn't have employees. 

[BmorePat87]

(02-09-2018, 04:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So basically you don’t have to absorb any of the risk in case this dude demands to be called Sheila.  

I imagine your decision making changes once you are on he hook for any lawsuits.

Let's move these goalposts a yard back...

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(02-09-2018, 04:12 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:
Like is said when you are the one on the hook for any bs lawsuits then come back and let me know how much risk you  are willing to accept.  

It’s easy to act like it’s no big deal when you have no skin in the game.

You mean like for discrimination against sexual orientation and/or gender preference?  Yea you should be careful as an employer. 

[GMDino]

(02-09-2018, 04:09 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So basically you don’t have to absorb any of the risk in case this dude demands to be called Sheila.  

I imagine your decision making changes once you are on he hook for any lawsuits.

You are correct that I, personally, am not "on the hook".  However the people that are "on the hook" set the rules.  And what name a person wants to be called and how they lead their private life (as long as legally) is not what they care about.

Maybe things are different in Florida.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 04:48 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: You mean like for discrimination against sexual orientation and/or gender preference?  Yea you should be careful as an employer. 

Exactly. Which is exactly why if the guy demands to be called Jennifer then he better walk in as a producer. That would be the only way I would take on that type of risk.

But for normal employees..... not worth the risk. Interview 101 ..... don’t bring your weird/controversial stuff to the table.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 04:26 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: It's easy to act like it's not a big deal because it's really easy to not repeatedly and purposefully call someone by the wrong name.

I get that you dislike trans people, but it's not hard to resist the urge to purposefully call anybody by the wrong name. If you find yourself struggling to not consciously harass people, maybe you shouldn't have employees. 

I harass no one. I speak directly to everyone. I have minimal filter when it comes to things I deem as irrelevant nonsense. This pretending to be something you are not is irrelevant nonsense in my book. I have worked with transsexuals before, as vendors for us, outside of that I would not bring that nonsense to my business. If I did hire one it is because they kept their personal life private and came to work as a normal person. My employees can do whatever they wish in their private lives and if that means they want to wear a dress and sing it’s raining men then so be it:...

I do not dislike anyone. I just have an expectation for my employees. I am not here to be anyone’s counselor.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 05:01 PM)GMDino Wrote: You are correct that I, personally, am not "on the hook".  However the people that are "on the hook" set the rules.  And what name a person wants to be called and how they lead their private life (as long as legally) is not what they care about.

Maybe things are different in Florida.

If you were on the hook for all lawsuits. Do you think you might hunk twice before hiring potential at risk applicants?

I will say that I felt the same way you do before my name was on the door.

When I take a risk it’s a risk for every employee and their families as well as mine. Lots of livelihoods are at stake when you take the risk.

[Belsnickel]

(02-09-2018, 05:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you were on the hook for all lawsuits. Do you think you might hunk twice before hiring potential at risk applicants?

I will say that I felt the same way you do before my name was on the door.

When I take a risk it’s a risk for every employee and their families as well as mine. Lots of livelihoods are at stake when you take the risk.

Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, we could treat everyone equally and with respect. Then maybe you aren't putting yourself at any risk.

[StLucieBengal]

(02-09-2018, 05:45 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Or, and I'm just throwing this out there, we could treat everyone equally and with respect. Then maybe you aren't putting yourself at any risk.

Maybe if we didn’t live in a lawsuit happy society. Plus I honestly do not need anyone around who is so fragile.

[GMDino]

(02-09-2018, 05:36 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: If you were on the hook for all lawsuits.  Do you think you might hunk twice before hiring potential at risk applicants?

I will say that I felt the same way you do before my name was on the door.

When I take a risk it’s a risk for every employee and their families as well as mine.   Lots of livelihoods are at stake when you take the risk.

Honestly...no.

I am responsible for the hirees.  It could be my job if I hired someone that sued the company.

But that's not even the point.  

We hire the best person.  We have some requirements...none of which are what name do you prefer, how do your dress and what do you do in your private life that is perfectly legal.

And, may I add, I am not worried that me or the owner will deliberately insult an employee because of our personal morals.

A an owner with multiple employees I would expect that you would feel the same.  You certainly wouldn't want any of your many employees to act in a way toward a customer or a fellow employee that would get you in trouble so you wouldn't act the way either simply because of a name/lifestyle.  

[GMDino]

(02-09-2018, 05:57 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Maybe if we didn’t live in a lawsuit happy society.  Plus I honestly do not need anyone around who is so fragile.

Someone secure enough in their own skin to live as a female (or male) is "fragile".  

So someone who won't hire that person because he's afraid of being sued for deliberately insulting them isn't fragile?

Cool story.