Categories
dating tips sexual inequality the wayward press volcels

No one wants to date Trump supporters, and boy is the National Review mad

Just not interested

Conservatives have been complaining for a while about one of the most pressing civil rights crises of our time: the fact that no one wants to bone them.

Some conservatives are so, so troubled by this injustice that they’re willing to throw away their libertarian principles and advocate for some kind of governmental intervention to — I guess — somehow force people to like them.

At least that seems to be the main argument of a very long and very very confusing essay in the National Review with the somewhat unnerving title “Political Discrimination as Civil-Rights Struggle.”

Eric Kaufmann, a professor of politics at the University of London and a fellow at the Manhattan Institute, starts out his screed by citing a poll revealing that most Ivy League women have about as much interest in dating Trump supporters as they do in sticking their head in a bucket of bees.

When a sample of nearly 1,500 female Ivy League students was asked whether they would date a Trump supporter, only 6 percent said yes (after excluding the small minority of the sample who support him).

While Kaufmann notes in passing that “people are free to discriminate however they wish in dating” — how thoughtful of him! — he’s worried that such “discrimination” against Trumpists will lead to various other kinds of social “intolerance.” In his eyes, the survey results reveal what he calls “the predilection among many young elite Americans for progressive authoritarianism.”

And it’s basically a new kind of racism, without that whole racial aspect. He seconds another writer in arguing that “those who politically discriminate are acting in precisely the same manner as those who justify prejudice against Muslims or Jews.”

To fight back against this terrible threat, Kaufmann argues,

conservatives will have to overcome their squeamishness about government to have any chance of holding back the woke domination of American institutions.

Apparently, “woke domination” can only be fought by embracing a new form of governmental “civil rights” activism.

To counteract the rising threat that progressive authoritarianism poses to freedom of expression and conscience, conservative policy-makers will need to lose their 1980s libertarian blinders and embrace government-led, civil-liberties-focused intervention in the elite institutions of society.

While Kaufmann discusses several other supposed social injustices against conservatives, he seems obsessed with the ways in which “Trump supporters get the short end of the dating stick,” citing several other surveys that reveal how much students hate the idea of “making America great again” in bed. Or even in the campus dining halls.

Bobby Duffy shows that those who are liberal on culture-war issues find it much harder to befriend those on the other side than vice versa. Cultural progressivism is increasingly emerging as a status marker, which is one reason why, as Bari Weiss reports, elite private schools are hotbeds of left-modernist (“woke”) intolerance, as are elite universities and liberal-arts colleges such as Smith. …

Wherever the culture of campus, dominated by the young and educated, predominates, progressive intolerance and political discrimination against conservatives are in the ascendant.

Apparently it’s gotten so bad that some conservatives have started keeping their opinions to themselves. (If only.)

As progressive authoritarians become a larger share of the elite workforce, institutions are likely to grow more intolerant … As in authoritarian regimes, dissenters keep their views to themselves through preference falsification.

The only solution? A new “crusade for political civil rights” designed to protect Trumpists’ and other conservatives’ right to offend everyone with their nonsense and still get laid.

The solution is similar to that imposed on segregated universities of the South that were compelled by the federal government to desegregate … It’s not that progressive illiberalism is as bad as segregation, but rather that the underlying principle of institutions violating individual rights, and of the government overruling them to protect such rights, is the same.

So our current situation isn’t as awful as Jim Crow but it kind of is.

To wage this battle, those on the right, along with freedom-minded allies on the left … will need to ditch the deregulatory libertarianism that is paralyzing political action and permitting woke takeover. Unless this battle is joined, the power centers of the country will increasingly move toward campus-style intolerance, further entrenching the system of progressive conformity.

Sorry, National-Review-reading dudes, but none of this is going to make women want to fuck you.

H/T — Wonkette

Follow me on Twitter.

Send tips to dfutrelle at gmail dot com.

We Hunted the Mammoth relies entirely on readers like you for its survival. If you appreciate our work, please send a few bucks our way! Thanks!

Subscribe
Notify of
guest

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

90 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nequam
Nequam
2 months ago

@Ox: I think they wrote “flapjack” and the lower case f and l were too close together.

Moon Custafer
Moon Custafer
2 months ago

@Elaine the Witch, @Big Titty Demon:

May I suggest a third possible pronunciation?

(Apparently the scriptwriter confirmed years later that yes, he totally did that on purpose, surmising correctly that no one in the censorship office was likely to know what a clitoris was.)

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 months ago

@Ox, UKnian flapjacks are not at all pancake-y; they’re more like a sort of gooey, chewy oat bar (gooey because they have syrup or similar binding the oats together) and can be pretty nice. Very sweet, though. (I would have said they’re a kind of biscuit, and then I remembered that biscuit is Something Quite Different on either side of the pond)

Last edited 2 months ago by opposablethumbs
Lumipuna
Lumipuna
2 months ago

Is it a debate of CLIT-oris vs cli-TOR-is, or something else? Which side did you fall on?

I think the difference is an American vs British pronunciation thing at least with these two, from the people I’ve observed pronounce it one way or the other.

I think I have a vague idea of how those two options sound. I probably won’t ever need to say “clitoris” out loud in English, but in my natural Finnish accent it just comes off kind of flat. Then again, I prefer the Greek-style plural “clitorides” over English-style “clitorises”, so I could always play fancy and pass my accent off as “Greek style pronunciation” 🙂

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

Right here is where you explicitly supported hiring/retaining open fascists in the workplace

@Dalilama
Step didn’t explicitly anything.
Listen I don’t agree with her on private political ideology being need to be a protected class, but she didn’t explicitly say what you’re claiming.
You’re inferring.

and not all Trump supporters are fascist and one can support him without actively wanting the exterminate historically oppressed groups.

This isn’t to say there aren’t many Trumpists who are straight up fascists.

Dalillama
2 months ago

Step didn’t explicitly anything.

Steph said that Trump supporters should not be fired over their fascist politics right there on the screen, mate.

and not all Trump supporters are fascist and one can support him without actively wanting the exterminate historically oppressed groups.

Yes, they are, and no, you can’t. Voting for politicians for whom my death and that of my loved ones is a fundamental part of their platform is actively wanting us to die. Likewise, voting for an unapologetic fascist does, in fact, make someone a fascist, full stop. Incidentally the part where you’re here expecting me to be ok with working next to someone who actively wants me dead, because they’re entitled to their political opinion? That’s a serious asshole move, and pulling it in the same post as fascist apologia and tone policing doesn’t help. Just so you know.

Alan Robertshaw
2 months ago

@ full metal ox

People have addressed the flapjack question; but yeah, they’re these things.

https://domesticgothess.com/blog/2018/05/18/vegan-fruit-and-nut-flapjacks/

Very nice. Just ask any kleptomaniac squirrel.

Lizzie
Lizzie
2 months ago

Alan! Here’s a disturbing article about the loss of information on the interwebs, it freaked me out for sure, I wonder if you or other readers have had this impact on their work – it is from the Atlantic, and is called The rotting internet is a collective hallucination.

Full Metal Ox
2 months ago

@Nequam:

I think they wrote “flapjack” and the lower case f and l were too close together.

@opposable thumbs:

Ox, UKnian flapjacks are not at all pancake-y; they’re more like a sort of gooey, chewy oat bar (gooey because they have syrup or similar binding the oats together) and can be pretty nice. Very sweet, though. (I would have said they’re a kind of biscuit, and then I remembered that biscuit is Something Quite Different on either side of the pond)

@Alan Robertshaw:

People have addressed the flapjack question; but yeah, they’re these things.
https://domesticgothess.com/blog/2018/05/18/vegan-fruit-and-nut-flapjacks/
Very nice. Just ask any kleptomaniac squirrel.

Thank you, everyone; so it’s another case of Separation By A Common Language. (I experienced a similar collision in a local cafe run by British immigrants when I ordered Branson Pickle, anticipating some sort of cucumber rather than a sweet onion chutney.)

I once worked in a shop that sold bulk candy, and what the mice (and at least one chipmunk) couldn’t get enough of were Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups and Squirrel Nut Zippers (caramel with embedded chopped peanuts, and presumably the basis for the band name.)

Last edited 2 months ago by Full Metal Ox
Jon
Jon
2 months ago

Steph said that Trump supporters should not be fired over their fascist politics right there on the screen, mate.

Again it’s pretty evident she was not doing what you’re doing and going Trump supporter with Fascist.

Yes, they are, and no, you can’t. Voting for politicians for whom my death and that of my loved ones is a fundamental part of their platform is actively wanting us to die.

No, they’re not and yes you can. You’re oversimplification of human thought process is really naive. 1/3 Asian Americans, and 1/3 of Hispanic Americans did vote for Trump for reasons other than they want to see themselves dead. You can say bigotries against certain groups simply propelled them to vote for the man. And I could concede that much. After all they’re were Jews who supported Hitler because they wanted him to go after specific Jews.

One can honestly not see the lives and welfare of oppressed groups(anyone’s whose not white in America) as threatened by certain politicians who you see as a danger.

Likewise, voting for an unapologetic fascist does, in fact, make someone a fascist, full stop.

Is Trump a fascist? Yes. But someone can honestly disagree ignore the expressly anti-Democratic, and pay attention to the other stuff of his they like.

Incidentally the part where you’re here expecting me to be ok with working next to someone who actively wants me dead, because they’re entitled to their political opinion? 

Actually point to where I expressly say you should be okay with working with people who want you dead because they’re entitled to political opinions.
Because I think I’ve been quite explicit in my position of how I don’t think political ideology should be treated as a protected class in terms of employment.
Do not just point to me saying not all Trump supporters do want the extermination of oppressed groups.

Dalillama
2 months ago

Historians have a word for Germans who joined the Nazi party, not because they hated Jews, but out of a hope for restored patriotism, or a sense of economic anxiety, or a hope to preserve their religious values, or dislike of their opponents, or raw political opportunism, or convenience, or ignorance, or greed.

That word is “Nazi.” Nobody cares about their motives anymore.

-A.R. Moxon

Non
Non
2 months ago

Dalillama

 9 hours ago

@Ohlmann

and you discover that on his free time he do trump political activism. Do you fire him on the spot ?

Immediately and with prejudice. Tolerating fascists just encourages them. You know this perfectly well, the issue has been explained to you many times; if you still don’t get it, Popper’s essay on it is widely available online, go and read it yourself maybe.

I know of some.

In fact you do not. They have stated that they are Trump supporters, which means that they actively want me (among many others, including literally all of my loved ones) dead. That creates a hostile environment for anyone who isn’t a fascist or fascist sympathiser, and most especially for any members of oppressed populations.

@Steph

@Gaelboga – yeah I disagree

Right here is where you explicitly supported hiring/retaining open fascists in the workplace.

-Ohlmann is probably aware what you suggest would be a violation of some or all labor laws. Implying someone pointing out this reality “does not get it” is arrogant and presumptuous.

-Didn’t Steph say earlier “I may just have a feeble lady brain but I am pretty sure I know what I was talking about and it was not about actual fascists in the workforce.”? Do you have a history of ignoring women’s actual words?

It’s been a long time since I peaked in, but this thread seems to be full of regulars and none of them are supporting “hiring/retaining open fascists”. They are however acknowledging it’s a thorny issue to removed people if they haven’t violated the law or company policy. IOW not everyone has the tools to do it without incurring liability.

Should we do it? Hell yes.
Can we do it instantly? In many cases no.(I actually agree we should be able to avoid hiring them, but companies can be caught flatfooted if boilerplate policies are inadequate) And calling anyone who isn’t ready to recklessly act without a plan “supporting fascists” is irrational.
Should we be working on shifting policy? Maybe pressuring companies to adopt better measures? Fuck yeah.

Being upset we often don’t have the tools to act promptly is understandable. Lashing out at allies to blow off steam is unproductive, disrespectful and childish. Get help before you drive away any functional friends in your orbit. Or perhaps you only act like this online. But I doubt it.

occasional reader
occasional reader
2 months ago

Funny, in french, the discussion about clitoris is more on wether you pronounce the final s or not. Depending where you have grown, you will pronounce it or not, like the final s in the word “moins” (less) or “plus” (more) (to add difficulty, for this last word, the pronunciation is also often linked to the meaning of the sentence…).
All those small variations and futile distinctions are why i love languages and the possibilities to play with them.

Ohlmann
Ohlmann
2 months ago

Dalillama is still in the wrong, even if I don’t expect any acknowledgement of this. And misuse of that quote alway make me roll my eyes.

Sure, the trump supporters are all fascists, just like germans nazis were nazis. They are not all the frothing at the mouth fanatics that Steph talk of, because sometime words have differents meaning and the group of all Trump followers isn’t an uniform group. So when Dali try to equivocate every Trump follower to that subgroup, that’s a sophism. A useless one at that ; it’s not like the less extremist supporters are actually better.

The quote remind that all the people that support a fascist governement *are* bad people and aren’t somehow absolved of their sins because they didn’t kill jews themselves. That quote don’t mean every single of theses nazis were willing to burn peoples ; rather, most were happy to close their eye, allow it to happen, and hope their nazis masters will give them some scrap of what they want.

And that’s important, because the National Review basicaly talk of the active, frothing at the mouth fanatics that the rep’ party need to do a coup, while Steph and a number of other talk of all Trump supporters, which include a lot of people whose sin is just being stupid and not caring. Trying to approach both end of the trump follower group the same way is stupid and will only make things worse.

As a reminder, after the WWII, most of the nazis got away scott free, and didn’t lost their job either. And that’s not a rebuttal of the quote of Dali ; it’s just that it absolutely don’t mean what Dali try to make it say. Germany, sensibly, only judged the guys who actively did stuff, with most of the passive nazis understanding fully well that their governement have lost but otherwise continuing to work and be in the active force.

And if you try to argue it wasn’t the right approach, remember that Germany have less nazis problem than the USA have. Arguably it even have less nazis problem than France, where the denazification* was much harsher.

* technically the removal of collaborators, who in France mostly was done by mob justice, with every single kind of excess you can imagine.

Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@Dalilama

Steph said that Trump supporters should not be fired over their fascist politics right there on the screen, mate.

I think this is called a strawman. I said no such thing.

Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@Sarity

I’d love to hear Mr. Kauffman’s views on men who are explicit in their stance that they would never date a liberal feminist.

Oh I am sure he would turn himself into a pretzel arguing why that is different. I suspect he is one of those men who thing only conservatives (specifically conservative men) get to have dating preferences. Women excluding men is absolutely unacceptable.

Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@Jon

I believe Daliama is equating Fascist with Trump supporter.
Which I think for many it’s justified. The majority of them have a positive perception of Qanon for a reason

I really can’t comment on whether ALL Trump supporters meet the actual definition of a fascist (and I think that word is tossed around too easily). I have not studied it but I would think it is unlikely but happy to accept I maybe wrong. But I was making the broader point that I disagree that just because a belief is a choice that it is fine to discriminate against it. I think it is a completely valid argument to make that where beliefs cannot be proven to interfere with somebody’s work then employer’s should not be able to remove people just because they dislike their politics. If I am doing my job as intended and am no risk to my fellow colleagues, then how I voted should be my own affair.

I am not a Yank but am a Brit and the closest I can think of is the Brexit vote. Despite people trying to simplify it I know Brexiteers and Remainers from all walks of like. I have some incredibly progressive, liberal friends who wanted to leave the EU and a guy I know who paints himself as “progressive” but is a complete brocialist with a tendency to lean for racism when annoyed. Yet he voted Remain. I am just saying I think discussing whether diversity in the workplace or centres of learning should also include diversity of thought is a very valid argument.

Far more valid than whining about people’s dating choices (because let’s face it – when dating people get to be as discriminatory as they want, no matter what others think of it.)

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

Oh I am sure he would turn himself into a pretzel arguing why that is different. I suspect he is one of those men who thing only conservatives (specifically conservative men) get to have dating preferences. Women excluding men is absolutely unacceptable.

@Step
Yep wouldn’t be surprised if he explicitly called for government to redistribute the sex.
Every man—mainly conservative whites—gets to have a participation wife for being “nice”

Alan Robertshaw
2 months ago

@ opposable thumbs

I would have said they’re a kind of biscuit,

This being England that’s actually been the subject of litigation.

As far as the courts are concerned flapjacks are cakes. 🙂

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19389.html

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 months ago

@Alan, TIL that flapjacks too are a legal minefield 🙂 Thought that had only happened with the Great Jaffa Cake Controversy (I s’pose it’s another existential ‘to VAT or not to VAT’ question … :-s)

Last edited 2 months ago by opposablethumbs
Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
2 months ago

@opposablethumbs:
Well, here in Canada if you buy a single muffin, it’s a food item and must be taxed. But if you buy half a dozen muffins, that’s a grocery item and must not be taxed. Both of these apply whether you buy the single or half-dozen muffins in a restaurant or grocery store; only the quantity matters. (Which makes sense, given there are establishments that are both.)

opposablethumbs
opposablethumbs
2 months ago

@Jenora Feuer that would be a right scunner if you got to the till and found you didn’t have quite enough on you for the half-dozen! Depending on the price and the tax rate, I guess you could potentially be a hairsbreadth short for 6 muffins and find yourself only getting 4 :-s

Hambeast
Hambeast
2 months ago

Why not use the midwestern US designation of “bars” for British flapjacks? It’s always been a handy term for sweets that aren’t cakes (which generally have eggs in them) or cookies/biscuits (which generally are separately baked on a sheet).

Mildly related: Alton Brown (a US foodie guy with a sciency food show) maintains that pancakes and US flapjacks are technically muffins.

Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
Redsilkphoenix: Jetpack Vixen, Intergalactic Meani
2 months ago

@Snowberry, @Ohlman,

I don’t know about how delusional the folks distributing this thing are; only that they very clearly didn’t think that plan through at all. As in, they obviously didn’t consider the idea that all of their steps have at least one more outcome than the one they want. Like, what if no one wants to impeach Biden and Harris and likes them in charge; what then? What’s the plan for that contingency?

A commenter on another blog I visit (and where I first found this story) found someone who actually tracked down the original author of that plan, and read some of how that guy was going to bring down the Democrat Party (aka Step 1 of the plan).

https://www.wonkette.com/captain-americas-dream-has-always-been-the-conservative-nightmare

This plan has now moved from ‘needs a miracle or ten to succeed’ to ‘needs to be implemented by a very powerful reality warper’ to succeed. >.<

Jenora Feuer
Jenora Feuer
2 months ago

@opposablethumbs:
Well, yes, and given a number of places give you a discount if you buy a half-dozen, six muffins can end up costing less than 5 to the customer. The store’s still making more money because less of it is going to taxes.

Ontario taxes get even more fun because there’s a poverty exemption that food items less than $4 total don’t get charged provincial sales tax (though they do still get the federal GST). So if a muffin is $1, you end up paying $1.05 for 1 muffin (GST is 5%), $2.10 for 2, $3.15 for 3, $4.52 for 4 (provincial sales tax kicks in at an extra 8%), $5.65 for 5, and $6 for 6.

The people who have to program cash registers and point-of-sale systems to deal with all this get very grumpy when the rules change again. They’re messy enough as it is.

An Impish Pepper
An Impish Pepper
2 months ago

If I am doing my job as intended and am no risk to my fellow colleagues, then how I voted should be my own affair. […] I am just saying I think discussing whether diversity in the workplace or centres of learning should also include diversity of thought is a very valid argument.

I don’t get your point in saying this. Should we just not hold people responsible at all for who/what they vote for? Most of the types of people who are written about on WHTM do not pose an obvious risk to others; they’re not the ones storming the Capitol, or going on killing sprees, etc. All the same, much has been said here about how these people should be kept away from marginalized folks (usually women), or even put on some kind of watchlist.

Left-wingers and marginalized people are silenced on a regular basis, in a variety of ways. Marginalized people regularly get fired, if they’re hired at all, for much less than making it known that they voted for a fascist party. People get punished by social media sites just for discussing racism and transphobia. And certain political parties are explicitly targeted with restrictions when it comes to running for office or even leaving the country. So unless you’re excluding certain people from your idealized “diversity of thought” scenario, it is just that, an idealized scenario.

The quote remind that all the people that support a fascist governement *are* bad people and aren’t somehow absolved of their sins because they didn’t kill jews themselves. […] The National Review basicaly talk of the active, frothing at the mouth fanatics that the rep’ party need to do a coup, while Steph and a number of other talk of all Trump supporters, which include a lot of people whose sin is just being stupid and not caring.

So let’s see if I have this right: “Non-fanatic” fascists aren’t absolved of their actions just because they didn’t kill anyone themselves, but if you suggest consequences for them, you are the REAL fascist.

Ooglyboggles
Ooglyboggles
2 months ago

I don’t think it’s particularly prudent to abet those who at the best, are perfectly okay with supporting a person whose policies directly negatively impact the lives of trans people up to and including their deaths.

@jon

@Ohlmann
But we are not at this point Post World War 2 Germany after the explicit fascist takeover that resulted in World War 2. I believe at best a Trump Supporter would be given suspicion by other minorities due to well, his explicit actions endangering other humans for vile reasons of fascist and racist populism.

Last edited 2 months ago by Ooglyboggles
Alan Robertshaw
2 months ago

The denazification programme is a complex topic. Well worth reading up on though; especially from a legal perspective.

But to grossly over simplify…

The original Allied intention for Germany was the Morgenthau Plan. That entailed using a bill of attainder to execute all top nazis; then destroying German industry. The idea being that a totally agrarian country would not have the capacity to wage war in the future.

For all sorts of reasons, not least the coming Cold War, that was replaced in the Western occupation zones by the Marshall plan. To whit, build up a strong economy and hope to instil democratic values. The much maligned European Convention on Human Rights stemmed from that.

People were put into different categories, with different consequences.

  • V. Persons Exonerated (German: Entlastete). No sanctions.
  • IV. Followers (German: Mitläufer). Possible restrictions on travel, employment, political rights, plus fines.
  • III. Lesser Offenders (German: Minderbelastete). Placed on probation for 2–3 years with a list of restrictions. No internment.
  • II. Offenders: Activists, Militants, and Profiteers, or Incriminated Persons (German: Belastete). Subject to immediate arrest and imprisonment up to ten years performing reparation or reconstruction work plus a list of other restrictions.
  • I. Major Offenders (German: Hauptschuldige). Subject to immediate arrest, death, imprisonment with or without hard labor, plus a list of lesser sanctions.

Originally denazification was carried out by the occupying powers. They soon however outsourced the process to the the German authorities. A lot of the time it was the local Gauleiters who made the adjudications. One can see how they might not have been the most rigorous judges.

Add in things like Operation Paperclip; the ratlines, and the recruitment of ex Gestapo by both CIA and KGB; and it’s perhaps not surprising a lot of former nazis may have evaded their just deserts.

epitome of incomrepehensibility

It might be worth pointing out that no one’s suggesting penalizing voters *just* because they voted for Trump. If you know they’re a Trump supporter, that’s because they’ve talked about it. And, let’s be real, they probably didn’t say “hey, I voted for Trump” and left it at that.

E.g. someone I know from real life, also a Facebook friend, keeps posting pro-Trump links* saying how the election was supposedly stolen. I never respond to the posts. I’m sure I’m not the most active activist that ever activated, but it’s valid not to want to spend the time and energy to argue. I would argue back if he said those things to me directly (online or in person).

But that’s me. I wouldn’t blame anyone for arguing with or completely blocking someone who did that. Since I do know him from before, I wouldn’t cut off all contact because he has bad political views, but it does make me feel silly having a crush on him in years past.

*We both live in Canada, so what’s the deal about stanning U.S. politicians anyway??

mouse sparrow
mouse sparrow
2 months ago

1. Stop dogpiling Dalillama.
2. Steph; Dalillama IS a woman, so what even are you on about with that trying to appeal because of your gender?
3. Non; Dalillama IS a regular. I’ve not seen Steph much at all, and Jon and Ohlmann as far as I’ve seen are fairly new.
4. Again, just stop.

Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@ImpishPepper

“I don’t get your point in saying that”

I dunno: I think it would maybe have been easier if you read the bit you extracted and replaced with “…”

The full comment I made:

“ But I was making the broader point that I disagree that just because a belief is a choice that it is fine to discriminate against it. I think it is a completely valid argument to make that where beliefs cannot be proven to interfere with somebody’s work then employer’s should not be able to remove people just because they dislike their politics. If I am doing my job as intended and am no risk to my fellow colleagues, then how I voted should be my own affair.”

As an example I am an atheist which is a belief system. I don’t think the fact that that is a belief as opposed to an immutable trait means I should be able to be fired by an employer who does not like the fact I’m an atheist.

I should add that I am from the UK and now live in Oz both of which have fairly robust employment laws. So the “first at will hire at will” culture of some US states is not something I am familiar with / am naturally comfortable with.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steph
Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@mouse sparrow

I have not been involved in any “dog piling” – I respond to posts directed at me.

“ Dalillama IS a woman, so what even are you on about with that trying to appeal because of your gender?”

?? I am not sure their gender is relevant. I was calling out the condescension involved in dictating to somebody what is actually going on in their own mind.

An Impish Pepper
An Impish Pepper
2 months ago

@Steph
I don’t see what that full comment you quoted accomplishes. Stuff like being an atheist, or being pregnant and unmarried, is absolutely not comparable to supporting politicians who view atheists and unmarried pregnant people as evil. I don’t get how this is supposed to be a controversial take, here of all places.

Jon
Jon
2 months ago

It might be worth pointing out that no one’s suggesting penalizing voters *just* because they voted for Trump.

This is not worth pointing out, because this is simply untrue. There have been multiple people in this comment section who’ve so far they think it’s prudent for businesses to fire any Trump supporter no matter their level of political engagement or how outspoken they are.

mouse sparrow
mouse sparrow
2 months ago

Steph:

Yes, you have.
Dalillama has obviously stopped responding yet you continue to attack her.
You are actually using YOUR gender as an excuse to attack Dalillama.
Don’t pretend you didn’t know what I was on about.

Jon:
Yes, because surprise surprise, Trump supporters are generally garbage people.
I wouldn’t want to work next to someone who sees me as less than human.

P.S. please do not reply to me anymore.
It’s obvious you are both people I would not wish on my worst enemy.
I have my mental health to take care of.

Last edited 2 months ago by mouse sparrow
Jon
Jon
2 months ago

@epitome of incomrepehensibility

The comment above me perfectly illustrates my point on the black and white thinking some people have in terms of how to deal Trump supporters.

Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@mouse sparrow

Yes, you have.
Dalillama has obviously stopped responding yet you continue to attack her.

FYI this is categorically false. I have only directly responded to posts that @ me. I have not made any further posts to Dalililama since she replied to me and I responded. That’s just an interaction. It’s also certainly not attack. I think you maybe confusing my posts with other people’s.

If replying directly to somebody’s post to you is “dogpiling” well then I am being dog piled too, including by you.

I literally have no idea what you mean by “using your gender to attack people” but I will leave it there as discussing straw men does not interest me.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steph
Steph
Steph
2 months ago

@impish pepper.

I don’t see what that full comment you quoted accomplishes. Stuff like being an atheist, or being pregnant and unmarried, is absolutely not comparable to supporting politicians who view atheists and unmarried pregnant people as evil.

That was dealt with in the full comment.

I am talking about the broader concept of beliefs not being immutable traits and therefore people being sacked for their beliefs being fine.

Again here – I am not narrowly talking about actual fascists, who create problems in the workforce losing their jobs (such as racists who get filmed and are fired.)

I am talking about the general idea that as a belief is a choice then it is fine to discriminate against it.

I think it is a valid argument to state that where beliefs cannot be proven to interfere with somebody’s work / do not create problems within the workforce then employer’s should not be able to remove people just because they dislike their politics. That’s all I was talking about.

On the specific topic of Trump supporters I would assume there is a fair amount of diversity among people who voted for him? The UK equivalent is voting conservative and I think any employer firing people for voting Tory would find themselves facing an employment tribunal.

Last edited 2 months ago by Steph
epitome of incomrepehensibility

@Jon – Sorry, but I’m not sure why you’re addressing me here. What I added was maybe more on their side than yours, but I wasn’t intending to argue with you specifically.

There can be black-and-white thinking, but there are also many reasons why a person wouldn’t want to be around someone who openly proclaims support for Trump.

Anyway, I don’t feel qualified to comment on the employment issue. I was just speaking from my own experience.

Elena Carlena
Elena Carlena
2 months ago

Gee, women don’t like the idea of being grabbed by the pussy by rich a-holes. Whoda thunk it.