I think you should mind your own business. Unless you want to create a gestapo like environment, i.e., "Turn in your neighbor for what she's reading".
13
The person who has posed the question should encourage the friend to take responsibility for himself. He needs to be willing to document, confront and report instances of anti-Semitism in his own company. The broader question being asked is,"How should an individual confront racist remarks made by co-workers and/or acquaintances?" They often occur unexpectedly and catch most people off guard. Very rarely such remarks are made innocently and can be a means to inform the person. Most of the time the perpetrator of the remarks is hoping to find a sympathetic ear. With those sorts, one has to be prepared to make the person uncomfortable by confronting him/her directly and making it very clear racist comments are absolutely not acceptable. In this instance, the employee must be prepared to counter the lies laid out in the Elders of Zion with full knowledge that anyone who actually believes what is written in the book is unlikely to accept the truth. Nonetheless, it must be spoken.
4
So heart-warming to see people dredging up the failed 1980s myth of "Political Correctness" to justify their own hates. Some of the comments here feel like the script for a bigotry nostalgia-fest.
The whole conservative concept of PC was created to allow right-wingers to say nasty, rude things and yet pretend they are victims just for saying them. It is a straw-man and an obvious one at that. The claim of not being PC always precedes a slur or a lie.
When someone says "This is not politically correct BUT…" you know something ignorant and inflammatory will follow. Before PC was invented by the right, those remarks were generally preceded with "Now don't get me wrong, BUT…"
The claim of being anti-PC allows rude people who received opprobrium for making nasty remarks to now claim they are making these remarks in the bold cause of freedom. It ain't working, folks. It flopped back when GHW Bush hid behind it, and it is failing for Carson and Trump now (except among the lunatic fringe which is where it originated).
History is clear on this: PC was invented by the right so they could seem like brave, bold victims when they viciously and falsely attack others. Listen and see: It always relates to utterance of a slur or a lie.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
The whole conservative concept of PC was created to allow right-wingers to say nasty, rude things and yet pretend they are victims just for saying them. It is a straw-man and an obvious one at that. The claim of not being PC always precedes a slur or a lie.
When someone says "This is not politically correct BUT…" you know something ignorant and inflammatory will follow. Before PC was invented by the right, those remarks were generally preceded with "Now don't get me wrong, BUT…"
The claim of being anti-PC allows rude people who received opprobrium for making nasty remarks to now claim they are making these remarks in the bold cause of freedom. It ain't working, folks. It flopped back when GHW Bush hid behind it, and it is failing for Carson and Trump now (except among the lunatic fringe which is where it originated).
History is clear on this: PC was invented by the right so they could seem like brave, bold victims when they viciously and falsely attack others. Listen and see: It always relates to utterance of a slur or a lie.
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
9
My father and father-in-law, like lots of Jews born in the early 1900s, knew Henry Ford was an anti-semite and didn't buy Ford cars. (My father-in-law relented after Ford went public.)
Another person of that age (Walt Disney), according to my father, was in the same "group" thought as Ford. I had thought father was exaggerating - but then read an item in the NYT documenting the fact that Disney publicly, at least for a while, "supported" the Hitler Regime, and like Lindbergh, was against our entering WWII. Lindbergh was out-spoken and was the American First (pro German) spokesman. His group was dissolved within a week of Pearl Harbor.
Another person of that age (Walt Disney), according to my father, was in the same "group" thought as Ford. I had thought father was exaggerating - but then read an item in the NYT documenting the fact that Disney publicly, at least for a while, "supported" the Hitler Regime, and like Lindbergh, was against our entering WWII. Lindbergh was out-spoken and was the American First (pro German) spokesman. His group was dissolved within a week of Pearl Harbor.
5
This story rings totally false. Is it plausible that someone was just overheard talking about the noxious tract in question? Or that another person had read it and agreed - citing Henry Ford? Why is anyone, including the Ethicists and the 200 or so commentators on this thread getting worked over a portrayal of an event that probably did not happen? Is to much too expect that a submission pass a basic smell test before becoming this week's entry?
2
After thinking about this one for a few more minutes, I suspect that the situation is made up for effect. What I wonder is if the letter is fabricated as well.
3
Before reading this column, I can't remember having heard of the subject book. In a few weeks or months, I will probably be back in the same situation.
I'm a little baffled by why (and how) the real-estate developer's lawyer is involved here. This matter doesn't seem to be the business of the real-estate developer (unless we've gone so sue-crazy that a landlord might be sued due to remarks by its tenants). The actions of the letter-writer should be limited to advising the person who came to him/her.
I'm a little baffled by why (and how) the real-estate developer's lawyer is involved here. This matter doesn't seem to be the business of the real-estate developer (unless we've gone so sue-crazy that a landlord might be sued due to remarks by its tenants). The actions of the letter-writer should be limited to advising the person who came to him/her.
5
When someone who just discovered it tells me about ‘‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’’ (and it does happen)... I laugh. Heartily. Till they look puzzled. Then I ask them if they would like to buy a bridge over on the East Side since they seem to fall for anything that comes down the pike.
This is very effective, especially if there are other people around to hear the exchange.
(To the person below who mentions the Will Eisner book - excellent thought, and a brilliant book indeed, but in my experience that book is way over the heads of the people who already bought into this ancient hoax. Instead of reading Eisner's book and understanding it, they are more apt to just get out their crayons and start coloring it.)
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
This is very effective, especially if there are other people around to hear the exchange.
(To the person below who mentions the Will Eisner book - excellent thought, and a brilliant book indeed, but in my experience that book is way over the heads of the people who already bought into this ancient hoax. Instead of reading Eisner's book and understanding it, they are more apt to just get out their crayons and start coloring it.)
https://emcphd.wordpress.com
5
Racism is always a game; most dangerous to be sure—it can end in death; but once engaged, you have to play.
There are always three players. We learn from Raul Hilberg, the definitive research-er on the Holocaust (The Extermination of European Jews), the three players are the perpetrator, the victim and the by-stander. Hilberg goes a step further: The Holocaust occurred because the roles of each of the three players constantly changed; like a game of musical chairs with three players and one chair.
Since among the three of you, only two know the game is in play—you, who believe yourself to be the victim and the person who informed you—the perpetrator. The by-stander—the person who made the original remark is totally unaware that the game is in play.
The object of the game is to make the by-stander the new victim.
Both victim and perpetrator have to act in tandem: Books on the Holocaust out in the open on each of your desks. After a few days, exchange books. Eventually, the by-stander’s curiosity will recognize that at least two people appear to have an interest in the outcome of the subject he found “interesting.” Discussions are inevitable.
It is a dangerous game, and if the boss is a genuine anti-Semite, both victim and perpetrator could be fired. However, not to play the game out could also be a graver danger.
There are always three players. We learn from Raul Hilberg, the definitive research-er on the Holocaust (The Extermination of European Jews), the three players are the perpetrator, the victim and the by-stander. Hilberg goes a step further: The Holocaust occurred because the roles of each of the three players constantly changed; like a game of musical chairs with three players and one chair.
Since among the three of you, only two know the game is in play—you, who believe yourself to be the victim and the person who informed you—the perpetrator. The by-stander—the person who made the original remark is totally unaware that the game is in play.
The object of the game is to make the by-stander the new victim.
Both victim and perpetrator have to act in tandem: Books on the Holocaust out in the open on each of your desks. After a few days, exchange books. Eventually, the by-stander’s curiosity will recognize that at least two people appear to have an interest in the outcome of the subject he found “interesting.” Discussions are inevitable.
It is a dangerous game, and if the boss is a genuine anti-Semite, both victim and perpetrator could be fired. However, not to play the game out could also be a graver danger.
Racism was never a "game" and no sane person has to "play" the game. The ridiculous nonsense written in the Protocols was evidently believed by Hitler, not the brightest bulb. He was, however, a dynamic speaker, filled with rage and able to mobilize a population suffering from an economic Depression, looking for economic hope. The Versailles Treaty was a punitive exercise, and it planted the seeds for the Second World War. Jews, Gypsies, mentally disabled, petty criminals et al were blamed for the defeat of Germany in WWI; they were thrown into concentration camps, surrounded by barbed wire and electrified fences; camp guards were not hired for their management skills, but for their loyalty to Hitler and willingness to obey orders, however brutal and cruel. At the end of the day, British and American troops liberated these camps and films were made to document the horror of it all: living skeletons, mounds of dead bodies and ashes. "Game Theory" does not provide an explanation for WWII; "Game Theory" is an invention of the Rand Corporation. If you enjoy war as a game, play Risk or Diplomacy. Invite your friends to a brunch, provide the game pieces and instructions and play the game. Just remember that millions really did die in a real world war fought 70 years ago.
2
It seems that what the questioner just discovered, is that the right to be an a--hole is not limited to just the uneducated.
If this idiot is just talking to a friend, then I would suggest that the right approach would be to just ignore him, since I have found that it is impossible to change another persons racist opinions, no matter how logical the approach. However, if this person is trying to actively promulgate his anti- Semitic ideas within the company, then definitely a call to the general counsel or president of the company is warranted.
If this idiot is just talking to a friend, then I would suggest that the right approach would be to just ignore him, since I have found that it is impossible to change another persons racist opinions, no matter how logical the approach. However, if this person is trying to actively promulgate his anti- Semitic ideas within the company, then definitely a call to the general counsel or president of the company is warranted.
8
For $.99 Jeff Bezos can explain it all for you:
Book Description
Publication Date: May 10, 2012
The International Jew is a book written by Henry Ford, who authored books and articles which make claims about Jews. Readers will be able to make their own judgements of this work, as some find it to be accurate while most have historically found Henry Ford's writings to be filled with innacuracies and bigotry. This book is presented here for educational purposes and for those who are interested in reading a book written by important American businessman Henry Ford. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition and was provided by the publisher.
"Some find it accurate" -this from the owner of the Washington Post.
Book Description
Publication Date: May 10, 2012
The International Jew is a book written by Henry Ford, who authored books and articles which make claims about Jews. Readers will be able to make their own judgements of this work, as some find it to be accurate while most have historically found Henry Ford's writings to be filled with innacuracies and bigotry. This book is presented here for educational purposes and for those who are interested in reading a book written by important American businessman Henry Ford. --This text refers to the Hardcover edition and was provided by the publisher.
"Some find it accurate" -this from the owner of the Washington Post.
1
Does the manager in question supervise Jewish employees? If so, that makes the question rather more urgent.
1
So, reading a book and making a comment about it is not permitted?
9
Maybe you haven't read this book.
7
Why didn't anybody suggest that the letter-writer might say to the person who admired the "Protocols …" that the book is total trash. It isn't too late to go back to the person and say something like "I've done a little research [after s/he really does, of course] and that book is a forgery committed by the tzar's secret police. And Henry Ford was a virulent anti-semite. In fact, that book formed part of the ideological basis of Hitler's Nazi movement."
Wouldn't an educational approach be more effective than trying to get the anti-semites into trouble somehow? You don't want to generate sympathy for them, after all.
Wouldn't an educational approach be more effective than trying to get the anti-semites into trouble somehow? You don't want to generate sympathy for them, after all.
8
The first amendment gives you freedom to express yourself without government censorship.
It does not give you a guarantee that you can discuss in the workplace that you think that a book that says Jews kill Christian babies and drink their blood has "excellent points" without perhaps suffering some ramifications from your employer.
All ideas are not equal. Some ideas are down right bad or disgusting.
It does not give you a guarantee that you can discuss in the workplace that you think that a book that says Jews kill Christian babies and drink their blood has "excellent points" without perhaps suffering some ramifications from your employer.
All ideas are not equal. Some ideas are down right bad or disgusting.
9
This discussion could be greatly improved by going back to the previous format of the column. This new one seems to encourage flippant comments by the columnists and an attempt at one-upmanship by them rather than subtle, lengthier and more thought provoking responses by a single author.
26
I ALWAYS read the column in its previous format. I might read the question posed in the new format - but almost never read all the comments.
2
"What is freedom of expression? Without the freedom to offend, it ceases to exist." - Salman Rushdie
13
Book burning. anyone?
C'mon already - a limited private conversation between coworkers hardly constitutes or reflects a hostile work environment. People have the right to read what they choose, and to share with associates their opinions thereof, however odious, without incurring such interventions as this dialog considers.
C'mon already - a limited private conversation between coworkers hardly constitutes or reflects a hostile work environment. People have the right to read what they choose, and to share with associates their opinions thereof, however odious, without incurring such interventions as this dialog considers.
16
It is amazing that so many people here are viewing this alleged conversation as fact, especially those individuals who see this as an another example of "widespread" and "growing" antisemitism.
Let me pose something to these concerned individuals.
Does it occur to you for one moment that hearsay - which is exactly what this "conversation" really is - did not have a deleterious effect on people of the Jewish faith throughout history?
Think about this before you cast the next stone about something you assumed may have happened.
Let me pose something to these concerned individuals.
Does it occur to you for one moment that hearsay - which is exactly what this "conversation" really is - did not have a deleterious effect on people of the Jewish faith throughout history?
Think about this before you cast the next stone about something you assumed may have happened.
9
The pernicious roots of anti-semitic rants are difficult to tamp down. I've never heard of the book, but I've heard the echo of its message throughout time, it seems.
3
I've had the misfortune of being one step removed from three racially motivated multiple homicides, and I have tried to study what it takes to change people's attitudes. Some were highly educated--is in this case. There is no magical formula that allows us to transform others' views in a moment, and we don't have the right words on the tips of our tongues.
But it is always more likely to promote change if we engage than if we attack. The words I wished I could summon in a situation like this might be these: "You know, the back story of the Protocols book is fascinating!" And it is. It is a hoax, and they were susceptible to a hoax, even victims of a hoax--a hoax that tragically victimizes Jews more than anyone.
And it isn't too late. The inquirer could address the speakers directly now with a note, When you mentioned the Protocols book, which I had heard about before, I looked into it a bit. It has a fascinating back story! I thought this might interest you, too." And include a copy of a book that details the evolution of the conspiracy/hoax. Will Eisner and Umberto Eco turned it into a graphic novel that could be purchased and included for both participants,
The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. May 17, 2006 by Will Eisner and Umberto Eco.
No angry conversation, no public shaming; respect the person and condemn the view.
But it is always more likely to promote change if we engage than if we attack. The words I wished I could summon in a situation like this might be these: "You know, the back story of the Protocols book is fascinating!" And it is. It is a hoax, and they were susceptible to a hoax, even victims of a hoax--a hoax that tragically victimizes Jews more than anyone.
And it isn't too late. The inquirer could address the speakers directly now with a note, When you mentioned the Protocols book, which I had heard about before, I looked into it a bit. It has a fascinating back story! I thought this might interest you, too." And include a copy of a book that details the evolution of the conspiracy/hoax. Will Eisner and Umberto Eco turned it into a graphic novel that could be purchased and included for both participants,
The Plot: The Secret Story of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. May 17, 2006 by Will Eisner and Umberto Eco.
No angry conversation, no public shaming; respect the person and condemn the view.
15
I see two different sets of issues here.
First, is the question of the evidence that this interchange occurred and what, if anything, the letter writer should do. I would agree that it would be premature to approach the tenant's general counsel. There would be nothing at this point with which the counsel could work. The letter writer can advise the employee who shared this incident to work through the tenant's HR department. This interchange clearly indicates a hostile work environment. I would expect HR to pursue the matter vigorously. If nothing else, if they do business in parts of Florida with significant Jewish clientele, the company would want to deal with the matter aggressively.
Second, is the matter of whether people praising a document which was a total fabrication and slander, which was one of the justifications for the progroms which killed thousands of Jews, and of the Shoah later on, in which millions of Jews were killed is a big deal or not. If you think it isn't a big deal, I can only have pity for your impoverished spirit.
First, is the question of the evidence that this interchange occurred and what, if anything, the letter writer should do. I would agree that it would be premature to approach the tenant's general counsel. There would be nothing at this point with which the counsel could work. The letter writer can advise the employee who shared this incident to work through the tenant's HR department. This interchange clearly indicates a hostile work environment. I would expect HR to pursue the matter vigorously. If nothing else, if they do business in parts of Florida with significant Jewish clientele, the company would want to deal with the matter aggressively.
Second, is the matter of whether people praising a document which was a total fabrication and slander, which was one of the justifications for the progroms which killed thousands of Jews, and of the Shoah later on, in which millions of Jews were killed is a big deal or not. If you think it isn't a big deal, I can only have pity for your impoverished spirit.
9
It is via reading, obtaining ideas, expressing those ideas and generating criticisms, that we create a just society. This process must include bad ideas. Concurrently, bad ideas don't go away when they are censored, they obtain mythic proportion.
In this case I read of no, "bad ideas" per se, only that two individual agree to compliment a book generally understood to be a lie. Hearsay in this case is not enough to warrant action.
The real problem here is a conspiracy to practice undue prior restraint of free, albeit embarrassing, expression. In this light I'd expect "Name Withheld" to have the same urge to tattle, if the work in question was; "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt
In this case I read of no, "bad ideas" per se, only that two individual agree to compliment a book generally understood to be a lie. Hearsay in this case is not enough to warrant action.
The real problem here is a conspiracy to practice undue prior restraint of free, albeit embarrassing, expression. In this light I'd expect "Name Withheld" to have the same urge to tattle, if the work in question was; "The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy" by John Mearsheimer, and Stephen Walt
5
Why is the person's name withheld? Seems to be a double standard at work here.
3
Is it possible that the people were kidding? I'm Jewish and to be honest that was my first thought. Comments like "it must be legitimate because it was endorsed by Henry Ford" seem like they almost have to be sarcastic.
11
This isn't even debatable; just a stupid bigoted comment which with attention paid lends it credence. DT's racial slurs, however, especially in light of the outrageous and seemingly self impugned way which he delivers them are ethical and debatable issues.
The fact is that Henry Ford, the founder of the company, was a well known anti-Semite himself. It's not surprising at he endorsed this Tsarist forgery. What is surprising, but not really, is that educated Americans still fall for it.
In order to express your shock, you might ask the employees what they think of the book "My Struggle" being careful to name the book in English and not in the original German, "Mein Kampf" by one Adolf Hitler. If they don't recognize it, so good. If they are familiar with it and weasel out something like "it makes some good points, but..." You've got a problem that probably rates a visit to their HR department
In order to express your shock, you might ask the employees what they think of the book "My Struggle" being careful to name the book in English and not in the original German, "Mein Kampf" by one Adolf Hitler. If they don't recognize it, so good. If they are familiar with it and weasel out something like "it makes some good points, but..." You've got a problem that probably rates a visit to their HR department
3
Good points can be made amid otherwise bad material, even if the good points aren't the focus of the work. It is a question of which points made are deemed good by the respondent.
I was born and raised in New York, have gone to very good schools, and have lived in many different places. I like to think of myself as highly sophisticated. I've come to know a South Asian student of 30 who is studying here. One day, he said he'd just watched a documentary on Hitler and was very impressed by him and that the Jews had caused their own problems.
I was shocked.
I was shocked.
2
I worked for a very right wing, huge company. One day a guy sent out a diatribe about Obama that bordered on racist. This went to literally everyone in his address book, that is everyone whom he had ever emailed. (I barely knew him) A number of us "replied to all" and said something like-- please remove me from your e-mail list for anything other than business related matters. I do not like to receive political commentary at work. GUESS who got in trouble? Those of who expressed our concern over this guy's lack of judgement got taken out to the woodshed and publicly shamed. About 30 days later I was part of a lay-off. Coincidence? I doubt it. Really the point is, anything resembling hate-speech should be banned from the workplace, and the haters need to get in trouble. Ignoring them is a form of endorsement.
8
I remember at one of my first jobs out of school, I'd been there a few months and we were interviewing another college grad. In the course of chit-chat outside the normal interview, maybe it was lunch, the interview said something racist. I was caught off guard and speechless.
My boss handled it about the best I think it could be handled. Just said: Better be careful saying things like that, someone overhearing might think you are a racist.
My boss handled it about the best I think it could be handled. Just said: Better be careful saying things like that, someone overhearing might think you are a racist.
6
As an HR professional, if an employee asks me to speak to me in confidence, I always say "I will do my best but depending on what you share, I may not be able to honor that." Then, it's up to the employee to decide if he/she wants to continue. If someone shared this with me, I'm not sure if I could keep it confidential since the comments could create a hostile work environment against a protected class (based on race: Jews). However, it isn't clear that a person of that class is being targeted. I know the consultant is not in HR or even a member of the same company, so doesn't have to follow the same rules and I do believe the advice given is good advice but it's up to all of us - not just those in HR - to create an inclusive work environment/culture.
2
Jewishness is not a "racial" identity. It either denotes somebody who has a specific set of religious beliefs, or an ethnicity, or a kind of tribal identity. But to call Jews part of a racial grouping is itself racist. Jews are members of a protected class on the basis of historic prejudice against members of their religion or against families of members.
6
The PC acceptance of bigotry has led us to regard Trump's nastiness as acceptable and put him within reach of winning the Republican nomination.
I have just been reading the Pope's Laudato Si on the environment and was reminded how far we have moved away from even paying lip service to tolerance, morality, and caring for each other in a few short months.
Here's the thing (Martin Niemöller):
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
A similar story here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/feb/21/maziar-bahari-memoir
I have just been reading the Pope's Laudato Si on the environment and was reminded how far we have moved away from even paying lip service to tolerance, morality, and caring for each other in a few short months.
Here's the thing (Martin Niemöller):
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
A similar story here:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/iran-blog/2013/feb/21/maziar-bahari-memoir
23
re: Susan Anderson
May I suggest your post is based upon a faulty premise.
Being "politically correct" is a liberal invention in which bigotry is not only NOT acceptable but should be censored.
In light of this I am not aware of any liberal that endorses any of the tripe that comes out of the mouth of people like Donald Trump.
Finally, concerning your quote from Martin Niemöller - it is totally inappropriate given the context of this letter in which the letter writer has made it clear h/she is basing their "understanding" of the alleged conversation on hearsay.
And Susan, if you know anything about the power of hearsay, it can not only be false, but dangerous.
Need some examples of what I am referring to?
Just ask any Jew who grew up in Nazi German or any African American who grew up during the Jim Crow era about the power and harm of hearsay.
May I suggest your post is based upon a faulty premise.
Being "politically correct" is a liberal invention in which bigotry is not only NOT acceptable but should be censored.
In light of this I am not aware of any liberal that endorses any of the tripe that comes out of the mouth of people like Donald Trump.
Finally, concerning your quote from Martin Niemöller - it is totally inappropriate given the context of this letter in which the letter writer has made it clear h/she is basing their "understanding" of the alleged conversation on hearsay.
And Susan, if you know anything about the power of hearsay, it can not only be false, but dangerous.
Need some examples of what I am referring to?
Just ask any Jew who grew up in Nazi German or any African American who grew up during the Jim Crow era about the power and harm of hearsay.
3
A liberal invention? Anything to prop that up on, aside from Wikipedia (aka, Truth du jour)?
4
Susan Anderson,
I think things are the exact opposite of what you say.
PC people don't want to accept Trump's "nastiness" exactly because of their PC attitude - purposely not distinguishing where it's nastiness and where it's just the blunt truth. These people are now trying to convince everybody everywhere that saying normal human things IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I could care less about DT, but am sure PC is much more harmful.
I think things are the exact opposite of what you say.
PC people don't want to accept Trump's "nastiness" exactly because of their PC attitude - purposely not distinguishing where it's nastiness and where it's just the blunt truth. These people are now trying to convince everybody everywhere that saying normal human things IS UNACCEPTABLE.
I could care less about DT, but am sure PC is much more harmful.
Read whatever you want, but you can't subject others to your disgusting perspective in the workplace. Get a blog and leave your coworkers alone.
I assume these commenters defending this conversation will also support the toy store employees talking loudly about the pornography they view and the "excellent points [of view]" in specific work. Pornography, after all, is far less offensive than anti-Semetism. Maybe the commenters would prefer if, rather than getting offended, the Jewish employees simply started quoting the Torah (actually, I fear that workplace proselytizing is exactly what some are hoping for).
You can almost see the spittle forming the corners of the mouths of those crying (whining) about the "PC police." "It's so unfair that I can't say anti-Semetic things at my job without creating a 'hostile work environment' or being considered a 'disgusting jerk.' It's so unfair!!"
Tip: if you're anti-"PC" consider that the "thought police" can't "get" you if you keep your mouth shut.
I assume these commenters defending this conversation will also support the toy store employees talking loudly about the pornography they view and the "excellent points [of view]" in specific work. Pornography, after all, is far less offensive than anti-Semetism. Maybe the commenters would prefer if, rather than getting offended, the Jewish employees simply started quoting the Torah (actually, I fear that workplace proselytizing is exactly what some are hoping for).
You can almost see the spittle forming the corners of the mouths of those crying (whining) about the "PC police." "It's so unfair that I can't say anti-Semetic things at my job without creating a 'hostile work environment' or being considered a 'disgusting jerk.' It's so unfair!!"
Tip: if you're anti-"PC" consider that the "thought police" can't "get" you if you keep your mouth shut.
14
I don't think anyone said the two employees were talking loudly. They were having a conversation, and someone overheard it.
Spittle coming from the mouths of those who disagree with you? According to what you say, those people want to make anti-Semitic comments and are upset that it's not acceptable. I have no idea where you got that impression. It seems to me that a fair number of commenters here who have decried PC and the thought police have expressed disgust with the Protocols but defended the employees' right to read whatever they want. How does that give you the impression that they themselves are anti-Semites?
Spittle coming from the mouths of those who disagree with you? According to what you say, those people want to make anti-Semitic comments and are upset that it's not acceptable. I have no idea where you got that impression. It seems to me that a fair number of commenters here who have decried PC and the thought police have expressed disgust with the Protocols but defended the employees' right to read whatever they want. How does that give you the impression that they themselves are anti-Semites?
1
The Thought Police are working on that.
1
As someone whose moniker claims to be from the "law" profession" would it be a stretch to assume you were asleep during the law school lecture on hearsay?
2
Attack the text! Do it explicitly and publicly, but impersonally.
"Protocols" has been known as a fraud/hoax/lie for nearly a hundred years, as is adequately documented in its Wikipedia article. Make it known on social media or old fashioned letters to the editor that you have heard Protocols is being passed around again, yet even a simple Wikipedia search shows it is garbage.
Even high-functioning apparent sophisticates are usually preoccupied specialists, with minimal time or reason to spend thinking about social or philosophical topics that seem tangential to their lives. Attack the text instead of the buffoons who offhandedly read it and you can, first, inoculate a lot of people against any first reading, and second, use peer pressure to shame the buffoons (privately, without cornering them) against either passing it on or acting on it.
Prejudice is often learned by osmosis, through observation of unsanctioned example. Let's make sure there are examples of social justice and critical thinking out there to learn from, too. That seems a more appropriate option for "the better angels of our nature" than the focused punishment the three ethicists seem determined to meet out.
BTW, "Mind your own business" sounds like the advice the non-Nazi half of the German population followed in the 1930s and 1940s. Probably not an example we should emulate.
"Protocols" has been known as a fraud/hoax/lie for nearly a hundred years, as is adequately documented in its Wikipedia article. Make it known on social media or old fashioned letters to the editor that you have heard Protocols is being passed around again, yet even a simple Wikipedia search shows it is garbage.
Even high-functioning apparent sophisticates are usually preoccupied specialists, with minimal time or reason to spend thinking about social or philosophical topics that seem tangential to their lives. Attack the text instead of the buffoons who offhandedly read it and you can, first, inoculate a lot of people against any first reading, and second, use peer pressure to shame the buffoons (privately, without cornering them) against either passing it on or acting on it.
Prejudice is often learned by osmosis, through observation of unsanctioned example. Let's make sure there are examples of social justice and critical thinking out there to learn from, too. That seems a more appropriate option for "the better angels of our nature" than the focused punishment the three ethicists seem determined to meet out.
BTW, "Mind your own business" sounds like the advice the non-Nazi half of the German population followed in the 1930s and 1940s. Probably not an example we should emulate.
27
You do not work for this company so what do you care? I can't see how this affects your business unless the tenant acts on "excellent points" which are illegal. Then you can terminate the lease.
11
The Protocols are a hoax written with Jewish stereotypes about taking over the world. Historically, the anti-Semitism has been in publishing and distributing the Protocols as if they were real. The whole point was to make Jewish people look bad by spreading false information presented as a real account. If someone says the book has "excellent points," is that person being anti-Semitic? I would think they agree with extreme views on Jewish world domination. So extreme as to be nonexistent because it's a hoax.
7
Lots of apologists here today. We're supposed to ignore racism and bigotry? Pretend it's nothing?
26
We are not supposed to ignore racism and bigotry. I would have really appreciated a question in which a person was directly involved in a conversation that was racist. But this is a question about a person who heard from another person that a conversation between two other people may have been anti-semitic and wanted to know if he should bring the issue up with the general counsel of his own firm which does business with the firm of the people who may have said something improper.
It is sort of like telling you mother that Johnny said that Sue and Sally were mean, and your Mom should make it stop.
It is sort of like telling you mother that Johnny said that Sue and Sally were mean, and your Mom should make it stop.
2
I've read almost all the comments and have only seen one commentator question whether the remark was even made in the first place.
There are good reasons to discount hearsay evidence, as this is. The writer didn't hear it first hand. The person who claimed he heard it may have had any number of reasons for making it up.
The whole thing should be dismissed as a non-event.
It's frightening to think of how worked up people will get over what is literally nothing.
There are good reasons to discount hearsay evidence, as this is. The writer didn't hear it first hand. The person who claimed he heard it may have had any number of reasons for making it up.
The whole thing should be dismissed as a non-event.
It's frightening to think of how worked up people will get over what is literally nothing.
15
I agree with you-- the hearsay portion of this makes it less consequential and probably worth passing on engagement.
thank you dan shannon. most of what i've seen here prior to your comment sounds as bigoted and judgemental as the allegation.
No one is "entitled" to their own vicious, murderous, utterly false opinion. What a bunch of empty headed rhetoric, repeated here by about 30 commenters.
At the very least, they are also "entitled" to have their moronic, vicious opinions openly challenged by anyone passing by. At the very least, people passing by and overhearing them, are just as "entitled" to intervene and try to influence the morons as the morons are.
At the very least, they are also "entitled" to have their moronic, vicious opinions openly challenged by anyone passing by. At the very least, people passing by and overhearing them, are just as "entitled" to intervene and try to influence the morons as the morons are.
19
exactly. everyone is entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts. Protocols is not a good book that makes "excellent points." Its a fraud and a hoax.
What is this the thought police? The seminal point is not what book a person reads. it's how they conduct themselves. Whether or not the person is engaging in anti-Semitic behavior is the only issue. The totalitarian idea that a comment a person makes, about a book person reads, should "be reported" to someone is absolutely frightening.
18
that is like saying that if someone comes into the workplace sick with Ebola or covered in excrement, we should look at how they "conduct" themselves and avoid "totalitarian ideas"
I was about to write a comment about the legal relationships among all the parties here, which I believe compel the LW to report the incident to the developer. However, on reflection, I think the more interesting issue is why did the employee report the incident to the LW. It seems to me that he or she is shocked, and wants someone to make sure that the department head's prejudice is not affecting that business. I would let the employee know that I will do my best to keep his or her identity secret, but that there needs to be at least a discrete inquiry into whether the department head's prejudice is causing that business to commit illegal discrimination. Allowing such discrimination by tenants could give the development a reputation that would hurt its business, which the LW, as the developer's representative, has a duty to prevent. And I cannot help thinking that that's what the employee really wanted in the first place.
7
A lot of drivel starts by making good sense. It's where you take it, and if you look at it critically, that matters.
3
The comment isn't racist, and to me it sounds like the person who made the comment could easily be turned 360 if you dissected a paragraph she found "interesting". Talk openly about it and they may say to you "Huh, I never thought of it like that, either!".
1
I was going to comment that this is not an ethical issue at all, but several quite articulate commenters had beaten me to it, so I'll instead comment on surprising unanimity of opinions among the ethicists and the opposite consensus among the readers who find it bizarre that somebody would want to approach legal counsel (at a company they do not work) about a reported conversation between two co-workers about an anti-Semitic book. I wonder if after reading all these comments any of the ethicists now feel that the conversation and the game of telephone that followed do not amount to a legal or ethical issue.
15
If I had to react to the every day anti-muslim remarks I hear at work on on various television station news programs, that would be my full time job. But I recognize that this is still a semi-free country (Prism not withstanding) and people have/should have the freedom to read whatever books they choose and discuss them afterwords. You can't police people's thoughts. Its what they do that matters.
19
I do react to all the anti-muslim comments I hear. Why don't you?
The evidentiary chain here is so convoluted, I had to read the question a few times and I am still not sure what the letter writer has to do with the situation he or she heard about through hearsay.
A sad fact of human nature is that people casually believe all sorts of terrible things. And whacky things, too. Come back on another day, and those same two people might be talking about UFO's and how aliens built the pyramids.
People have a right to be casual idiots. I am not sure that is an ethical issue. It's a problem, a depressing problem, but it's a problem of human nature as ineradicable as yawning without covering your mouth. If there is an ethical issue here, it is that the letter writer thinks it is somehow their job to set all idle thoughts aright. That is a Sisyphean task, I can assure you. If you want to live arou8nd absolute purity of speech and thought, join a convent, and even there, good luck with that.
A sad fact of human nature is that people casually believe all sorts of terrible things. And whacky things, too. Come back on another day, and those same two people might be talking about UFO's and how aliens built the pyramids.
People have a right to be casual idiots. I am not sure that is an ethical issue. It's a problem, a depressing problem, but it's a problem of human nature as ineradicable as yawning without covering your mouth. If there is an ethical issue here, it is that the letter writer thinks it is somehow their job to set all idle thoughts aright. That is a Sisyphean task, I can assure you. If you want to live arou8nd absolute purity of speech and thought, join a convent, and even there, good luck with that.
15
Silence might imply endorsement, so I'd say the letter writer should make the confiding employee aware that the letter writer opposes anti-Semitism. What happens after that depends on the facts that develop - but why can't the employee herself decide whether to raise the issue with her employer, via whatever the company handbook says, or even contact a lawyer herself if legal advice is what she wants? I am a big fan of people speaking up when they witness wrongdoing, but I'm not a big fan of overreacting. But, I never heard of that book, so maybe my lowkey reaction is from my ignorance.
2
the only thing evil needs is for good people to do nothing.
that book is a well-known book of completely false slurs and has been used to justify lots of killing and other oppression.
that book is a well-known book of completely false slurs and has been used to justify lots of killing and other oppression.
2
There's not much you can do to change their minds, really. I saw someone reading Henry Ford's "The International Jew" in a coffee shop one day, and asked for a quick peek. Since I don't look Jewish I don't think he resented it - but he wasn't too friendly, either. I scanned it quickly and it was another international conspiracy by shadowy and secretive oligarchies. Sometimes it's the Freemasons, sometimes it's the Illuminati, sometimes it's overpaid CEOs. If we could just get rid of them, everything would be hunky dory once again. As if.
Well, none of these said oligarchies ever gave ME any money. So these "international Jews" or "rootless cosmopolites" ain't sharing with the common Jew, meaning if they exist, they're preying just as much on their fellow Jews as anyone else.
So I asked this guy if he believed what was in the book and he said Yes, he did. Having argued religion and politics countless times, I figured why bother. He wasn't harming me at the moment. People can seethe with hatred all they want. You have to nail them on actions, not thoughts. And the fact that I didn't fear him is indeed a step forward. It means he was not all-powerful and society's laws would not support him if he did try to assault me or otherwise harass me.
Well, none of these said oligarchies ever gave ME any money. So these "international Jews" or "rootless cosmopolites" ain't sharing with the common Jew, meaning if they exist, they're preying just as much on their fellow Jews as anyone else.
So I asked this guy if he believed what was in the book and he said Yes, he did. Having argued religion and politics countless times, I figured why bother. He wasn't harming me at the moment. People can seethe with hatred all they want. You have to nail them on actions, not thoughts. And the fact that I didn't fear him is indeed a step forward. It means he was not all-powerful and society's laws would not support him if he did try to assault me or otherwise harass me.
6
And 20 years later you have a Dylann Roof shooting up a bunch of innocent people spurred on by a bunch of "harmless" teachings.
3
This is anti-Semitic but not racist. Jews are NOT a race!
4
Wow people are really scared of the "thought police."
How about not chatting happily about how right the anti-semites are WHILE YOU'RE ON THE JOB.
Not saying it's the LW's business (sounds like it's the business of the person who told her about it) but I hardly read this as a terrifying sign of PC takeover. There's lots of stuff I could get fired for saying WHILE AT WORK.
If you want to vent or spew venom, go to a bar.
How about not chatting happily about how right the anti-semites are WHILE YOU'RE ON THE JOB.
Not saying it's the LW's business (sounds like it's the business of the person who told her about it) but I hardly read this as a terrifying sign of PC takeover. There's lots of stuff I could get fired for saying WHILE AT WORK.
If you want to vent or spew venom, go to a bar.
5
Years back I was active in the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. So it’s not as if I haven’t seen the reference to the Protocols many times before as well as reactions those references elicit.
In the inquiry, A tells something to B which elicits a response from B and their remarks are overheard by C who now conveys what he overheard to Anonymous. There is an expression, discretion is the better part of valor. Discretion here means understanding that these are snippets, not only snippets but snippets learned by Anonymous second-hand, and reaction (overreaction?) of Anonymous can overtake whatever was deemed of concern and itself become the problem.
If Anonymous fells he or she must do something, get material from the ADL that calls out the Protocols for what they are, give it to C, and suggest the material get passed on to A and B.
In the inquiry, A tells something to B which elicits a response from B and their remarks are overheard by C who now conveys what he overheard to Anonymous. There is an expression, discretion is the better part of valor. Discretion here means understanding that these are snippets, not only snippets but snippets learned by Anonymous second-hand, and reaction (overreaction?) of Anonymous can overtake whatever was deemed of concern and itself become the problem.
If Anonymous fells he or she must do something, get material from the ADL that calls out the Protocols for what they are, give it to C, and suggest the material get passed on to A and B.
1
I'm not a white male, have seen discrimination up close and abhor it.Straight, and had a gay housemate in the 70's.
However, one suggestion makes me very uncomfortable. You are apparently suggesting that the representative for the lease company actively solicit more secondhand reports from a tenant's company employees, without the company's knowledge or consent, in order to create a "trail." In other words, spying on them. This is over one hearsay conversation.
If you want to contact their general counsel with your "trail," of evidence, better first contact your own company's general counsel.
However, one suggestion makes me very uncomfortable. You are apparently suggesting that the representative for the lease company actively solicit more secondhand reports from a tenant's company employees, without the company's knowledge or consent, in order to create a "trail." In other words, spying on them. This is over one hearsay conversation.
If you want to contact their general counsel with your "trail," of evidence, better first contact your own company's general counsel.
5
I don't believe that was what Yoshino was suggesting. The complaint by the letter writer could be made to the company's general counsel, which would investigate, or at least keep track of future complaints.
1
Have we really reached the point where people will now be "reported" for doing something legal--albeit repulsive?
This is the kind of thing that leads to "re-education camps."
This is the kind of thing that leads to "re-education camps."
21
In this case yes -- read the following comment from Ira from Portland
1
"Reeducation camps." I think that's a real stretch.
3
People are not guaranteed the right to hate speech on the job without ramifications. No one is talking about jail. That would be taking away first amendment rights. Endorsing the protocols is hate speech. Saying it made "excellent points" is hate speech.
3
The really shocking thing is how most of the commentors on this column have no clue just how ingrained anti-Semitism is in this country. I have lived in New York, Florida, rural Ohio and West Virginia and Oregon. There is anti-Semitic hate everywhere. An ex-girlfriend told me she was handed a copy by her brother. A friend of a friend said he was scared of me because, as a Jew, I secretly control the world and could have "the authorities" come and get him, whatever that means.
I once worked at a radio station as a salesman. The owners were quite explicit about the fact that they hired me because, as a Jew, I would be good with money.
A deep distrust of "the other" -- whether it be black, Asian, Jew, Hispanic, whatever -- exists in this country and we need to shine a bright light on it. Racism hides behind many faces. Hatred and violence follow close behind.
I once worked at a radio station as a salesman. The owners were quite explicit about the fact that they hired me because, as a Jew, I would be good with money.
A deep distrust of "the other" -- whether it be black, Asian, Jew, Hispanic, whatever -- exists in this country and we need to shine a bright light on it. Racism hides behind many faces. Hatred and violence follow close behind.
122
I would be moved to say that the Protocols were declared to be a forgery almost a century ago and that it is a disgusting piece of garbage. I would be very honest about it and ask the person never to refer to it again. You could add that Ford was outed as an anti-Semite long ago and that Jewish people were treated like trash at his company and in the newspaper he financed, a copy of which was included with every Ford car during his lifetime.
1
That may or may not be true, but what has it got to do with the issue of what should be done about the people who read the Protocols?
3
The individual heard second hand about someone who may or may not have read an unapproved book, and may or may not have an unapproved opinion. Now the individual wants to report the alleged reader to the authorities.
5
First of all, it's not a "racist" remark at all.
Second, the answer to the question, "What should I do about it?" is simple:
Mind your own business and stop trying to join the thought police.
Second, the answer to the question, "What should I do about it?" is simple:
Mind your own business and stop trying to join the thought police.
52
It's an anti-Semitic remark, and the answer to anti-Semitic remarks is not to ignore them.
7
Yes it is. The only way in which you can think it is not if is if you do not find what it says to be an offensive lie that has instigated violence for a very long time and in a lot of places.
3
Oh, because an environment rife with anti-Semitism isn't a problem, then? Do you think Jewish clients will clearly and definitely get good service from that firm, or do you think they deserve to be treated poorly because of their religion/ethnicity?
This isn't about the 'thought police', whoever and whatever you imagine them to be. This is about ensuring that all people are treated fairly and with dignity, something impossible when people hold and espouse biased, bigoted beliefs without social sanction.
This isn't about the 'thought police', whoever and whatever you imagine them to be. This is about ensuring that all people are treated fairly and with dignity, something impossible when people hold and espouse biased, bigoted beliefs without social sanction.
13
Unless someone is being overtly discriminated against due to anti-Semitism, and a legal remedy is called for, this sounds like political correctness run amuck.
44
Unethical behavior has to be dealt with andAntisemitism bespeaks an unethical mind.
4
The responses given are exactly why we have no faith in the PC police. The conversation was NOT a first person account and was not an entire conversation. In addition, what exactly was wrong with expressing one's opinion?
If it's not approved by the PC police you have to report it, demonize the person and get them fired?
Stop it. Stop the stupidity and the madness. Mind your own business. And realize that lots of people talk and express opinions that you may not agree with. It's only of concern if those ideas become actions and infringe on people's rights.
This is an excellent example of how out of touch "The Ethicists" are with real life.
If it's not approved by the PC police you have to report it, demonize the person and get them fired?
Stop it. Stop the stupidity and the madness. Mind your own business. And realize that lots of people talk and express opinions that you may not agree with. It's only of concern if those ideas become actions and infringe on people's rights.
This is an excellent example of how out of touch "The Ethicists" are with real life.
76
What you say is exactly what might've been heard in Germany in the 1930s. To borrow a thought from the current vaccination controversy, if one expects the protection of the herd one needs to stand up for the herd...or face the prospect of another Kristal Nacht.
3
The PC police are a bad response to a real problem. Any ideas that shape public policy (such as the immorality of homosexuality or race-mixing) become actions and can infringe on the rights of others.
In a dictatorship, minding your own business is excellent advice. In a democracy, minding your own business destroys the dialogue of citizens upon which democracy is based and enables such official conduct as segregation and police brutality.
In a dictatorship, minding your own business is excellent advice. In a democracy, minding your own business destroys the dialogue of citizens upon which democracy is based and enables such official conduct as segregation and police brutality.
enter the thought police. since when does one person's summer reading list reflect on the corporate culture of a company they don't even work for??? scary!
worse is, advising the busybody to start fishing under the bushes to help accuse a company of condoning racism because someone said that someone else said that someone wrote a book that they didn't quite know how to evaluate. i wonder how these professors (the ethicists) will feel when it happens to them - when one student feels "uncomfortable" and starts to file a grievance and they find themselves in a disciplinary hearing for something they never saw coming.
worse is, advising the busybody to start fishing under the bushes to help accuse a company of condoning racism because someone said that someone else said that someone wrote a book that they didn't quite know how to evaluate. i wonder how these professors (the ethicists) will feel when it happens to them - when one student feels "uncomfortable" and starts to file a grievance and they find themselves in a disciplinary hearing for something they never saw coming.
36
I've heard of that book for years, but have never read it. Comments about it come up so often in other things I read that I now plan to read the book. Does that make me a bigot or racist? Watch out for Big Brother and "reporting" on people. Sounds like fascism to me.
Well, it almost seems like there's some sort of ethical issue here, but maybe there just... isn't. This would be consistent with the "Ethicists" enduring difficulty in finding anything about ethics to discuss.
The operative question appears to be "...but for what purpose?" In truth, the description of the problem lacks much of any definitive purpose for immediate action, other than maybe a casual heads-up to the tenant's counsel, if an opportunity comes up. Nothing in the description rises to the level of a question company culture. One employee heard two others talking about a repudiated proto-NAZI book that would qualify for one of John Oliver's "How Is This Still a Thing" segments. Perhaps 'Name Withheld' could ask for further evidence of a pattern of an anti-semitic company culture, but without that evidence, what's described is an isolated incident of stupidity.
Has this column gotten so bad that there just aren't that many questions submitted? One would think that even with a fairly small number of inquiries, a random distribution would yield at least one or two that contain an actual ethical dilemma. Perhaps not.
The operative question appears to be "...but for what purpose?" In truth, the description of the problem lacks much of any definitive purpose for immediate action, other than maybe a casual heads-up to the tenant's counsel, if an opportunity comes up. Nothing in the description rises to the level of a question company culture. One employee heard two others talking about a repudiated proto-NAZI book that would qualify for one of John Oliver's "How Is This Still a Thing" segments. Perhaps 'Name Withheld' could ask for further evidence of a pattern of an anti-semitic company culture, but without that evidence, what's described is an isolated incident of stupidity.
Has this column gotten so bad that there just aren't that many questions submitted? One would think that even with a fairly small number of inquiries, a random distribution would yield at least one or two that contain an actual ethical dilemma. Perhaps not.
50
"One employee heard two others talking about a repudiated proto-NAZI book"
I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was created by the Czarist Russian Secret Police to push their anti-Jewish progroms.
I believe that The Protocols of the Elders of Zion was created by the Czarist Russian Secret Police to push their anti-Jewish progroms.
2
It is somehow thought impolite to call out anti-Semites. It is that very politesse that perpetuates the problem. Arguing that a person who overheard the comment has no horse in the race encourages others to accept discrimination. Each and every bout of anti-Semitism is a rehearsal for the next bout of anti-Semitism. Decent people should do the decent thing: name it, out loud, at once!
54
The ethicists are treating this as a problem of the tenant company's "culture," when it seems that it just involves two individual members of that company. While I find such beliefs repugnant, I think that individuals are entitled to those beliefs, and that the employer should not be held responsible for them.
61
What you think is fine. But the employers can be held accountable. Plus they may just not want to foster an intolerant workplace.
14
It could also be that that company is so small that no government edicts even cover it. It could be a four person company, or similar.
5
If a Jew is treated badly in housing and brings a lawsuit, this may come out in discovery and influence the judgement. The climate of a firm is relevant information.
3
Unfortunately, from a legal perspective, the information would be little more than hearsay unless a clearer picture emerges.
16
Some general counsels would welcome this information. The attitudes expressed bespeak a frightening, racist ignorance that, in addition to being morally repulsive, could be very damaging to the company. The knowledge might prompt the company to talk to employees and order sensitivity training. Teaching people that we live in a society built on tolerance and that bigotry is wrong is not brainwashing.
The writer wasn't a busybody; someone in the company was disturbed enough to bring this up. For good reason.
The writer wasn't a busybody; someone in the company was disturbed enough to bring this up. For good reason.
1
I think the writer should keep their mouth shut. It had nothing to do with them, does not represent their employer and apparently not a factor in leasing the property.
18
Hang on, isn't the "Protocols of the Elders of Zion" that hilarious spoof, a sexy romp in Outer Space, penned by Elron Hubbard? I thought it was one of those old zany science fiction things with a lot of campy goofiness, that sparked that group of Improv and skit comics, the Scientologists.
Maybe I've got that wrong, but at any rate, I agree that this is the sort of thing to be tagged and followed up rather than have an attempt at firing people immediately. It should be kept in mind that this was hearsay, someone was told this by someone else, there's no recording or any other proof that it occurred. Could easily have been a real conversation that was misunderstood, like someone saying, some guy handed me this Zion pamphlet and it was totally insane, can you believe Henry Ford said this made sense?
Anyway the overriding concern is not whether there's racism in the workplace but whether it's acted on. Most humans are racist, it's inevitable, but if nobody's making decisions based on it and it's not negatively affecting employees or customers, it's not a problem that needs to be attacked I'd say.
Maybe I've got that wrong, but at any rate, I agree that this is the sort of thing to be tagged and followed up rather than have an attempt at firing people immediately. It should be kept in mind that this was hearsay, someone was told this by someone else, there's no recording or any other proof that it occurred. Could easily have been a real conversation that was misunderstood, like someone saying, some guy handed me this Zion pamphlet and it was totally insane, can you believe Henry Ford said this made sense?
Anyway the overriding concern is not whether there's racism in the workplace but whether it's acted on. Most humans are racist, it's inevitable, but if nobody's making decisions based on it and it's not negatively affecting employees or customers, it's not a problem that needs to be attacked I'd say.
10
Indeed you do have it wrong. It might be better to find out what the Protocols of the Elders of Zion actually is before dismissing it as unimportant.
2
Dan, I ave a conversation with you and say that I think Mein Kampf had some "excellent" points, but on the whole it was a putrid piece of literature from a sad and delusional mind to manipulate the fears and anger of a nation that was humiliated in peace by its wartime victors and frightened to death of hyperinflation and joblessness.
Now some unanimous interloper hears that conversation and passed it along to someone else.
What do you think the chances are that interloper would say to that other person that I thought Hitler wrote an "excellent" book?
Now some unanimous interloper hears that conversation and passed it along to someone else.
What do you think the chances are that interloper would say to that other person that I thought Hitler wrote an "excellent" book?
1
And would you then have all the books you find offensive burnt, as the Nazis did?
28
How is racism in the workplace handled at the NYTimes? The last letter about towels was clearly racist and yet none of the Ethicists mentioned it much less pointed it out to the LW.
11
Did this conversation take place in 1923? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Henry Ford? These anti-Semites sure are weirdly retro. I guess Father Coughlin was bit too nouveau for their tastes.
32
In all seriousness, who really reads The Protocols of Zion these days? Why should we take at face value what is being reported by Name Withheld, or, if we accept his/her story, the story being reported by the employee of the firm?
I'm not buying any of it without some real evidence. It sounds like just another hate hoax. Look for the hidden motive.
I'm not buying any of it without some real evidence. It sounds like just another hate hoax. Look for the hidden motive.
46
I would express concern about anything that is diminishing to any group of people with no hidden motive. I believe each of us can make a difference by speaking up about any form of discrimination to make this a better world to live in.
13
Some people simply have an inquisitive mind. I (tried to) read Mein Kampf once. Not because I'm German or a Nazi, but because I wanted to learn about what made the guy tick.
18
There's been a resurgence of anti-Semitism throughout the world. "The Protocols of Elders of Zion" is one of the most anti-Semitic pieces of reading in existence and is very convincing, especially to vulnerable people who don't know Jews or have had what they consider bad experiences with one or more Jews.
12
The person who reported the conversation may be concerned about retaliation for exposing anti-Semitism in the workplace; the laws that supposedly protect people from retaliation for opposing bias are convoluted (and differ from state to state; I'm an employment lawyer but familiar only with New York and federal law). And, as a practical matter, employers don't always follow the law. Shocking! On the other hand, it sounds as though the speaker in the overheard conversation is a time bomb for the employer, so the employer may want to review that person's decisions about their subordinates' careers, if any, pretty closely.
12
I agree with most of the commenters so far. The questioner seems to be poking his nose into something that's none of his business. What he's reporting is a moral, not criminal or legal issue. As the representative of the tenant company's landlord, this seems akin to rummaging in a tenant's garbage bin to see how many liquor bottles are tossed out.
As for the anti-semitic attitudes of the overheard employees, did the eavesdropper misinterpret a possibly jocular conversation? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Come on, how many people seriously read that, much less discuss it seriously. The reference to Henry Ford seems a tip off to a not quite straight faced conversation by what he refers to as "educated people".
But then, another, more suspicious part of me hopes the overheard conversation wasn't a reaction to the hyperbolic Iran treaty debate.
As for the anti-semitic attitudes of the overheard employees, did the eavesdropper misinterpret a possibly jocular conversation? The Protocols of the Elders of Zion? Come on, how many people seriously read that, much less discuss it seriously. The reference to Henry Ford seems a tip off to a not quite straight faced conversation by what he refers to as "educated people".
But then, another, more suspicious part of me hopes the overheard conversation wasn't a reaction to the hyperbolic Iran treaty debate.
24
"stupid anti-Semitic beliefs". are there un-stupid anti-Semitic beliefs?
17
Well just to play the part of devil's advocate here, I can see some impoverished civilians languishing in the toxic Gaza Strip having some fairly anti-Semitic conversations, that wouldn't be entirely stupid nor unfounded. Naturally it's Israel that's oppressing them, not Jews per se, but you get the drift.
8
Sorry Dan Stackhouse, you have it all wrong. Israel is not oppressing the people in Gaza. Israel is trying to protect its citizens from people whose culture glorifies death, destruction, and mayhem.
If anyone is oppressing the people in Gaza, it's their own people.
If anyone is oppressing the people in Gaza, it's their own people.
1
I wonder if this was prejudice or just ignorance. Had I been present, I would have spoken up: "You know that book is a hoax, right, written to fan the flames of anti-semitism? Henry Ford was taken in by it, but you weren't, were you?"
If people want to be anti-semites, though, it's a free country as long as they don't act on it. The company may not want to change its culture. And I don't think it's the landlord's job to decide that it should.
If people want to be anti-semites, though, it's a free country as long as they don't act on it. The company may not want to change its culture. And I don't think it's the landlord's job to decide that it should.
39
I don't get it. As offensive as the book and the subjects' opinions may be, the conversation appears to have been a private one that the bystander overheard. People are entitled to their opinions, racist and exclusionary though they may be. If no one was representing the company's policies or management when these statements were made, and if they were made in private, it doesn't seem like something that should be anyone's business but the two who were having the conversation.
34
One's privacy is as nothing when one is faced with a meddlesome (but I repeat myself) SJW.
2
What is a SJW?
1
Second hand information, maybe mistakenly heard. Bad news to bring it up.
Also, I'm not sure this is really racist. Anti-Semitic, yes.
Also, I'm not sure this is really racist. Anti-Semitic, yes.
4
While I appreciate the LW's concern regarding anti-Semitism, what he heard was not fact but gossip. I would not report third-hand information. It's a bad way to run an organization. If I worked for the company I would be on the alert to see if the company culture does tolerate intolerance. If I see examples of that myself then I would look at how to best approach my company about it. Silence would not be acceptable even if I risked my own job.
I would also talk to the person who told me about the conversation they heard. That is the person who should go to HR, a supervisor, or someone.
I would also talk to the person who told me about the conversation they heard. That is the person who should go to HR, a supervisor, or someone.
5
So being an anti-Semitic conversation makes it acceptable?
6
I don't get it. Who said that? Did I say that? No.
The word 'racist' is used incorrectly.
The word 'racist' is used incorrectly.
2
Years back I was active in the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith. So it’s not as if I haven’t seen the reference to the Protocols many times before as well as reactions those references elicit.
Let’s see. A tells something to B which elicits a response from B and their remarks are overheard by C who now conveys what he overheard to Anonymous. And from that snippet is conjured up a culture of anti-semitism maybe with another event such as the supermarket massacre which followed the Charlie Hebdo attack in the offing, which for Anonymous means at least a trip straight to the tenant’s general counsel.
I have heard remarks finding merit in ideas of the Communist Manifesto. Sometimes citing luminaries who similarly found such merit. What do we do: Set up another House Un-American Activities Committee?
There is an expression, discretion is the better part of valor. Discretion here means understanding that these are snippets, not only snippets but snippets that Anonymous learned second-hand, and reaction (overreaction?) of Anonymous can overtake whatever was deemed of concern and itself become the problem.
If Anonymous fells he or she must do something, get material from the ADL that calls out the Protocols for what they are, give it to C, and suggest the material get passed on to A and B.
Let’s see. A tells something to B which elicits a response from B and their remarks are overheard by C who now conveys what he overheard to Anonymous. And from that snippet is conjured up a culture of anti-semitism maybe with another event such as the supermarket massacre which followed the Charlie Hebdo attack in the offing, which for Anonymous means at least a trip straight to the tenant’s general counsel.
I have heard remarks finding merit in ideas of the Communist Manifesto. Sometimes citing luminaries who similarly found such merit. What do we do: Set up another House Un-American Activities Committee?
There is an expression, discretion is the better part of valor. Discretion here means understanding that these are snippets, not only snippets but snippets that Anonymous learned second-hand, and reaction (overreaction?) of Anonymous can overtake whatever was deemed of concern and itself become the problem.
If Anonymous fells he or she must do something, get material from the ADL that calls out the Protocols for what they are, give it to C, and suggest the material get passed on to A and B.
30
The remark was unfortunate but I'd let it lie there. People are entitled to their opinions, even racist or Anti-Semitic ones. Would it be any different if someone had just read Mein Kampf and remarked that Hitler had a few good points? Disgusting, yes, but not illegal nor the province of Name Withheld to take it any further.
7
Actually, I find much merit in The Communist Manifesto. And since the 1970s, we've actually been allowed to discuss it in classes here at our provincial little college.
6
This whole problem is mischaracterized. There was no "racist" remark. One person said they agreed with a book that most people (obviously not these two) would find offensive. No one even said "I like the ideas in that book, we should implement them by doing x."
11
Although I am not 100% sure - I am reasonably confident that we still allow people to read whatever trash they want to read...
Without an intervention by the thought police or the droogs.
Without an intervention by the thought police or the droogs.
32
Someone read a book and had the nerve to comment on it? Burn them at the stake! Opinions that differ form the currently accepted politically correct stance are not allowed.
27
The "politically correct" reference is getting real old real fast with people like me who stand up for high standards in how human beings treat one another. The Rethugs are throwing it about to try to camouflage their disdain for most people who are not just like them. If I stand up for the poor or anyone else, it is based on my beliefs of respect for one another. Enough of this term "politically correct", it is irresponsible and casts aspersions upon good hearted people like myself.
22
No, Joe was correct.
6
You claim to be "good hearted" but what you really are is meddlesome. Mind your own business, and face the fact that people will hold opinions with which you do not agree.
This is called "Liberty." Get used to it.
This is called "Liberty." Get used to it.
10
I suppose I should start by saying that I am Jewish, to avoid any misundesrtanding of what I write next.
People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong-headed, as long as they do not commit violent acts as a result.
The left has become the biggest purveyor of anti-Semitism in the Western world, thinly veiled as anti-Israel sentiment (as if it's OK to loathe all Israelis without distinction because they "deserve" it). All you need to do is read comments on articles about Israel by the "enlightened" readers of the NYT and you will see the venom and vitriol that they spew against Israelis and other Jews.
So lefty anti-Semitism is righteous, and Protocols anti-Semitism is evil? Ridiculous. They are both evil or at best, wrong-headed.
It is nobody's business what the person mentioned in the article believes as long as he/she/or it is not acting violently because of the belief that the Protocols is true.
Sorry, liberals. You can shut people up with speech codes but you can't stop them from thinking what they think.
People are entitled to their opinions, no matter how wrong-headed, as long as they do not commit violent acts as a result.
The left has become the biggest purveyor of anti-Semitism in the Western world, thinly veiled as anti-Israel sentiment (as if it's OK to loathe all Israelis without distinction because they "deserve" it). All you need to do is read comments on articles about Israel by the "enlightened" readers of the NYT and you will see the venom and vitriol that they spew against Israelis and other Jews.
So lefty anti-Semitism is righteous, and Protocols anti-Semitism is evil? Ridiculous. They are both evil or at best, wrong-headed.
It is nobody's business what the person mentioned in the article believes as long as he/she/or it is not acting violently because of the belief that the Protocols is true.
Sorry, liberals. You can shut people up with speech codes but you can't stop them from thinking what they think.
13
Jane Doe, you are way off base just because "the left" doesn't follow in "goose step" after right wing thugs completely overlook the rights of the Palestinians. That does not negate my respect for Israel. You're being very shallow here in your propaganda.
6
Well said.
No one can stop a person from thinking what they think, but, by the same token, no one can stop others from judging him or her for his expressed thoughts. Both parts are essential to freedom of conscience. Martin Luther King dreamed of a world in which people would be judged on the contents of their character, and not the color of their skin. What you think IS much of the content of your character. If you think the Protocols are just dandy, it speaks ill of your character, and you cannot be surprised that others judge you and treat you accordingly. I can't see how an actual conservative would believe otherwise.
Let it go. The writer didn't actually hear the remark as a participant or bystander and really can't state as fact that the remark was even made. Would the writer want to be on the receiving end of this type of accusation? Unless and until there is more evidence than hearsay, he/she should do nothing.
33
From the very start of this entire situation, I was thinking what a good head's up to management to have a race relations training right along with other needed trainings. No accusations need to be made about anyone; it is just a good reminder that occasionally these trainings need to be happening for the good of the company.
1
How about some advice about how to handle the minorities that try to imply that you are a racist if you don't like their work or if you are not friendly enough to them. I think standing up to racism is very important but without the counter balance of it being OK to standing up to false charges, it will never get very far.
18
Are you different with them as opposed to whites? Perhaps they noticed something about your behavior that supports their accusations.
1
And perhaps not. You have no way to know. Why do you imply that you do?
As long as you treat all people's work the same, and are not friendly to most people just cuz of your personality quirks. If it's mostly directed to one group of people then you have trouble on your hands. You need to confirm with examples that you treat everyone the same if you are ever accused.
1
What do you mean by "overheard"? I am Jewish, and I am appalled that anyone would like this book, admit that to someone else, and find agreement. However, people are allowed to talk to each other, aren't they? Was the person who reported the conversation eavesdropping? Should the persons discussing the book have gone out to lunch, or for drinks after work? If this conversation was actually meant to be heard by others in the company, it should be censured. If it was a private conversation - aren't we entitled to privacy in the workplace? - it should be ignored.
I can imagine the conversation between either of those parties and his/her supervisor:
"Why did you spend so much time at lunch?"
"I wanted to discuss 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', and I didn't think it would be appropriate to talk about in the workplace."
I can imagine the conversation between either of those parties and his/her supervisor:
"Why did you spend so much time at lunch?"
"I wanted to discuss 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', and I didn't think it would be appropriate to talk about in the workplace."
36
I am thinking there would be people who were NOT aware of the history or the critique of the book...do you allow for that?
Not sure what the issue is, as people are allowed to read whatever books they want and discuss it with whomever they want *and* they are allowed to be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
This letter writer is pretending to be concerned about their client, but actually disapproves of these specific world views. (If the book and conversation was the more politically correct pro-Palestinian viewpoint, doubtful this would be a problem.)
There is nothing illegal about their reading habits or conversation, as there is no law that says people must abide by the 'correct thinking' so pervasive on college campuses and has led to just this kind of group think.
FYI: The views espoused in the book are moronic to the extreme, but so what?
This letter writer is pretending to be concerned about their client, but actually disapproves of these specific world views. (If the book and conversation was the more politically correct pro-Palestinian viewpoint, doubtful this would be a problem.)
There is nothing illegal about their reading habits or conversation, as there is no law that says people must abide by the 'correct thinking' so pervasive on college campuses and has led to just this kind of group think.
FYI: The views espoused in the book are moronic to the extreme, but so what?
81
The "so what" is that this book promotes virulent anti-Semitism that resulted in "the final solution." We cannot passively allow it as a "normal" type of reading. It led to gas chambers, displacement of people, ongoing suffering, hate, and much more.
9
There is no law that says corporations must continue to employ people whose opinions may cause their corporation or other employees harm.
4
We also have to take a look at all the blacks that are being killed by cops and then the latter are found innocent of all charges. And this comment has nothing to do with "political correctness"; the term makes me want to vomit like it's about politics that we treat one another well. It's about being a decent human being and following the Golden Rule, if you will.
1
Although many people prefer to censor material with ugly themes, US culture generally supports the right of adults to read, view, etc. what they choose. Some ugliness such as child pornography carries penalties. Since general population rarely sees or reads the worst of the exploitation of children most continue to censor "Lolita" or fire Jared and think they are combating child pornography.
We do a poor job in our educational systems of preparing people to analyze material like the "Elders" since the impulse to simply censor what young adults have access to is a strong conservative value (like pretending "abstinence" programs provide effective sexual education). Thus the continuing appeal of ISIS recruitment, the "Elders" and other material that hides hate within "excellent points". It is not just the disaffected uneducated who are attracted, naive people who do not have critical thinking skills are also at risk.
There are many materials available to counteract the appeal of racist or traitorous propaganda. Leaving a few of those in the "break" rooms of the tenant might work. Telling the tenant's management that you would like to share the names of training companies other tenants have found useful would be another tactic. Offering through your developer, a few free lunchtime speeches from anti-defamation speakers would be another.
Fighting prejudice can be as simple as bringing together people from different backgrounds and showing them what they have in common.
We do a poor job in our educational systems of preparing people to analyze material like the "Elders" since the impulse to simply censor what young adults have access to is a strong conservative value (like pretending "abstinence" programs provide effective sexual education). Thus the continuing appeal of ISIS recruitment, the "Elders" and other material that hides hate within "excellent points". It is not just the disaffected uneducated who are attracted, naive people who do not have critical thinking skills are also at risk.
There are many materials available to counteract the appeal of racist or traitorous propaganda. Leaving a few of those in the "break" rooms of the tenant might work. Telling the tenant's management that you would like to share the names of training companies other tenants have found useful would be another tactic. Offering through your developer, a few free lunchtime speeches from anti-defamation speakers would be another.
Fighting prejudice can be as simple as bringing together people from different backgrounds and showing them what they have in common.
11
Yoshino's quasi-legal/ethical approach makes sense. For the writer to go to corporate counsel and report this, third hand, with no details -- well, what is the next person in line going to do? "Somebody says that somebody else said that two unnamed somebodies had a conversation revealing underlying prejudice?" It's too vague to confront anyone. It doesn't create a "business record" notation that might ever be used legally.
Letter writer SHOULD go back to seek the confidante's permission to make a record of the observations, with specifics, and urge that person to stand up and be a witness to the exchange to some appropriate person. It's not that an isolated comment requires or supports legal action: it's that no one knows if it is isolated or reflective of company culture, and that such things may ( or may not) become issues in the future. And LW can explain that he is bothered to be the holder of a disturbing report with the proviso that he do or say nothing.
The confidante - to my mind - should have spoken up - to the individuals. That is how to make it clear that prejudices are not shared - quickly and directly. But the LW doesn't control that - only his own actions. So - again - I agree he should say something to his informer and see that the event is recorded.
In workplaces - every place - there are people who are prejudiced against various groups; registering disapproval of obnoxious comments or actions firmly and clearly is a force for the good.
Letter writer SHOULD go back to seek the confidante's permission to make a record of the observations, with specifics, and urge that person to stand up and be a witness to the exchange to some appropriate person. It's not that an isolated comment requires or supports legal action: it's that no one knows if it is isolated or reflective of company culture, and that such things may ( or may not) become issues in the future. And LW can explain that he is bothered to be the holder of a disturbing report with the proviso that he do or say nothing.
The confidante - to my mind - should have spoken up - to the individuals. That is how to make it clear that prejudices are not shared - quickly and directly. But the LW doesn't control that - only his own actions. So - again - I agree he should say something to his informer and see that the event is recorded.
In workplaces - every place - there are people who are prejudiced against various groups; registering disapproval of obnoxious comments or actions firmly and clearly is a force for the good.
7
Cheryl, as I mentioned earlier if I was in the situation I would have stated something to set a boundary that this was not okay with me (if I had known about this book, which I didn't until this article). If I had been the LW I would have gone to management and said there might be a rumor about anti-Semitism being respected around here, and isn't it time to have some trainings such as race/cultural sensitivity?
2
"The confidante - to my mind - should have spoken up - to the individuals. That is how to make it clear that prejudices are not shared - quickly and directly. "
The person who made the antisemitic remark was an "administrator". It's likely that the employee was afraid of retaliation so s/he decided to pass the information on to the writer, who was not vulnerable.
People who speak up often are branded as troublemakers. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the reality.
The person who made the antisemitic remark was an "administrator". It's likely that the employee was afraid of retaliation so s/he decided to pass the information on to the writer, who was not vulnerable.
People who speak up often are branded as troublemakers. It shouldn't be that way, but that's the reality.
1
Good advice, but why did you title this incident racism ("Handling a Racist Remark...)? Anti-Semitism, while similar in some ways, is not the same as racism.
21
And the distinct6ion matters because.....?
3
Obviously in this case, the Semites in question are Jews. So, yes, in this case, anti-semitic would be racist, certainly according to people who think that The Protocols of Zion is actually based on reality. It is purely fiction and racist.
6
Both are hate. Equally.
3
I appreciate the nobility of your concern, but you wish to protect your employer's interests by delving into the ethos of his tenant's employees? That's a bit of a reach, but it doesn't fail human understanding. Are you not tampering with the concept, "quiet enjoyment of the premises", or is it your concern that this attitude may impact the tenant's business and ability to pay rent?
Two people having a conversation, no matter how unenlightened(ok,stupid), do not constitute the company, and if they carry their thoughts into being rude or other acts, it's the responsibility of the tenant company. If the tenant company decided to print and distribute copies of that rag, what would your position be?
Yeah, I'm disappointed, shocked, and dismayed that there is anti-semitism in this world, too. I'm frequently astonished at where it manifests itself, too. I'll put that news right next to my shock about racial bias, sexual bias, anti feminism and a few others. IF you gave that news to the general counsel of the tenant, what would your expectation be? For that matter, if someone came to you about a conversation in your company, what would you do? Unless they declare it required reading, it's just another bad idea.
Again, I hate that people think that way, but are you the thought police?
Two people having a conversation, no matter how unenlightened(ok,stupid), do not constitute the company, and if they carry their thoughts into being rude or other acts, it's the responsibility of the tenant company. If the tenant company decided to print and distribute copies of that rag, what would your position be?
Yeah, I'm disappointed, shocked, and dismayed that there is anti-semitism in this world, too. I'm frequently astonished at where it manifests itself, too. I'll put that news right next to my shock about racial bias, sexual bias, anti feminism and a few others. IF you gave that news to the general counsel of the tenant, what would your expectation be? For that matter, if someone came to you about a conversation in your company, what would you do? Unless they declare it required reading, it's just another bad idea.
Again, I hate that people think that way, but are you the thought police?
34
No, nothing Orwellian here, just an uncertain and upset human being in the workplace that is juggling an ethical dilemma. We can run into them throughout our lives. It's part of being a concerned human being.
3
Here comes the thought police! I'd say hold your nose and let it go. People really and truly have the right to think bigoted thoughts. One short conversation exchange is none of your business. If it becomes a frequent discussion then it's something else and action is warranted. Until then, you have no moral responsibility here.
76
Being employed by a corporation is a privilege, not a right.
1
No thought police, no George Orwell here to fret about. It is our ethical and moral duty as fellow human beings to stand up for our principles. People still have a right to care about other people, ok?
6
YES
What??? The person who said he read the book and thought it made some excellent points did nothing wrong. If he started treating associates at the company differently or unfairly based solely on religion or skin color, that is a different story, but what one reads or doesn't read in his or her spare time is still one's own business.
68
The person who thought it made excellent points showed an ignorance of both history and logic. And if the person votes, that makes it your business too, since it influences the future of a community you share. Voting is a different sort of thing from making a consumer buying decision, since it is done by citizens rather than consumers. People often decide to vote for someone or something (such as higher taxes) that will benefit the community even though it might harm them personally.
Even though the act itself is done in secret, voting is like choosing a house or a car or a vacation for a family. Everyone's needs and interests must be considered.
A community and a marketplace are different sorts of entities, even though confusing the two is encouraged by today's free enterprise Zeitgeist.
Even though the act itself is done in secret, voting is like choosing a house or a car or a vacation for a family. Everyone's needs and interests must be considered.
A community and a marketplace are different sorts of entities, even though confusing the two is encouraged by today's free enterprise Zeitgeist.
1
Since you represent the developer you have an ethical obligation to make him/her aware that this dangerous sentiment has root in the culture of one of the businesses that rent his/her property. The anonymity of the informant must be maintained. Belief in "Protocols" in the past contributed in part to the deaths of six million people, and the destruction of many more lives. You can't allow this to fester.
21
Fact: I am Jewish, my father's entire family disappeared into the Holocaust.
However, what people choose to read, believe, or endorse -- as compared to acting on it -- is none of my business, no matter how vile or stupid.
But: EBx's phrase "this dangerous sentiment..." scares me even more; it smacks of the so-called rationale behind every dictatorial, oppressive, evil, stupid and destructive movement out there, from Franco to Nazis to Communism to ISIS. I am reminded also of GW Bush's Press Secretary, after 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq "war," reminding the press that they should be careful about what they write.
When did it become illegal to be ignorant?
However, what people choose to read, believe, or endorse -- as compared to acting on it -- is none of my business, no matter how vile or stupid.
But: EBx's phrase "this dangerous sentiment..." scares me even more; it smacks of the so-called rationale behind every dictatorial, oppressive, evil, stupid and destructive movement out there, from Franco to Nazis to Communism to ISIS. I am reminded also of GW Bush's Press Secretary, after 9/11 and the beginning of the Iraq "war," reminding the press that they should be careful about what they write.
When did it become illegal to be ignorant?
12
Everyone is a busybody these days.
5
No one said these people should be arrested for this discussion, but a corporate manager may justifiably be concerned that this topic could contribute to a hostile work environment.
8
Go ahead and raise this non-issue with general counsel and let him or her inform you that this does not concern you or your company. Regardless of the reading material - The Anarchists' Cookbook or Hustler - it does not concern you or the developer for whom you work. Florida is the last place to practice anti-Semitism, especially in business, so if your tenant is a Nazi, for instance, he will not be there for long. I would love, just once, for a writer to come up with an actual ethical issue, instead of drivel. This is merely unverified office gossip.
76