From a question to the NYT Ethicist, Kwame Anthony Appiah, in "Is It OK That My Co-Worker Keeps Her Anti-Abortion Views on the Down Low? The magazine’s Ethicist columnist on withholding the truth when it may hurt you professionally."
Appiah runs with the sexuality analogy, "the closeted employee in a homophobic workplace":
Concealing your sexuality is consistent with self-respect if it’s motivated not by shame but by prudence. Nor are our deepest convictions exactly volitional: Could you choose to see abortion as wrong?
Here's another analogy: religion. What if you know your colleague believes nonbelievers in her religion are going to Hell? Is she unethical not to let her coworkers know that's what she thinks of them? To state the obvious: This subject matter is not appropriate for the workplace! It's certainly not wrong to keep quiet about it. The difficult question would be what if she believed ethics required her to disclose.
पोस्ट्स
९३ टिप्पण्या:
This goes to one of my predictions for the future:
Namely, we may long for the day when simply remaining silent was sufficient.
Shorter: How dare her! She can't just use the same tactics I would use to march through the institutions! How dare she remain unobstructed by my and my friend's attempts to stab her in the back at every opportunity! Only we're allowed to do that!
No private thoughts, comrade.
This is Orwellian. The Thought Police must know your innermost thoughts. Any deviant or unapproved thoughts will be punished by sending the person to the re-education camps.
In the military we have something called the "SECs", short for 'security'. For instance 'opsec' (operational), infosec (informational), comsec (communications), persec (personal), etc. you get the idea.
What this persyn dislikes so much is that practicing safe-secs is just part of good, wholesome, family friendly battlefield/battlespace preparation. Assessing strength, morale, and capability is super easy when your enemy just out and out tells you or doesn't hide it or makes it available as OSINT (Open Source Intel) to any zippertitted purple-hair that wants to take a look.
Leftists have been practicing safe-secs for decades, that was until the Obama administration finally gave them the confidence to take the mask off. Boy oh boy are they not going to like playing by the same rules.
It's ... None ... Of ... Their ... Business.
Fascists are in it for the feelz.
The fascism isn't really who they are. It is a tool that makes them happy.
What they really get off on is punishing people who are different than them. There are deep biological drives that are derived around conformity to the tribe. People that are different threaten status of other members of the tribe.
The reason that progressives seem to have double standards and act hypocritically at every step is because people don't recognize what they are consistent about.
The only thing progressives are consistent about is hatred for anything that is different and threatening to their status in the tribe.
For generations conventional wisdom said "Never discuss religion or politics" in professional or casual social (party) situations. Then, social media and Wokeness happened and that wisdom was either lost or never learned. Then, corporations got woke and went broke (check out the recent Hollywood and Netflix track records).
Discretion can once again be the better part of valor.
(Yikes! Are people really so inexperienced and untrained these days? Rhetorical question with an obvious answer.)
I agree that it's not an appropriate workplace issue. She might also choose a better quality of friend, if that's something that would fracture the friendship.
Appiah writes all his own reader's letters, and he always brings the subject back to where he sticks his you-know-what.
Which doesn't make him all that unusual for philosophers from the beginning of time. It's a crap profession.
But this is a very frightening response. These people will put us in camps, sooner or later.
What if you know your colleague believes nonbelievers in her religion are going to Hell? Is she unethical not to let her coworkers know that's what she thinks of them?
Telling people you think they are going to hell is an ineffective proselytizing technique. As a general rule, you want to stress the parts of the religion that your audience will view as positive. For instance, you tell them about the effect your faith has had on your life. Also, if someone doesn't want to talk about religious faith then drop it. (A practice I wish a lot of atheists would follow.)
The problem isn't that the co-worker has an unpopular opinion, it's that her workplace is so hostile that she lies to avoid confrontation. She shouldn't lie, and the workplace should chill out.
Now do red diaper doper babies.
To be fair, there are some Christians that will tell people that they are going to hell. I recall one instance where a daughter attending her father's funeral was told that the father was going to hell because he did not belong to the correct denomination. We try to avoid those people.
What if you see your co-worker reading Kwame Ariver in the NYT, and you know the "questions" are completely bogus. Is it "lying" to keep this information to yourself? Is it "procrastination"? Is it "serendipity"? Is it "Dippity-Doo Styling Gel"? Gosh, the possibilities are endless. Aren't they.
What if you know your colleague believes nonbelievers in her religion are going to Hell? Is she unethical not to let her coworkers know that's what she thinks of them?
Really? That's your example? To go on the attack against religious believers?
Are you also required to tell your boss exactly what you think of him/her?
We live in the silliest times.
Soon, employers will be checking to see if a closeted “Pro-Lifer” belongs to a Pro-Life group and/or has donated to a Pro-Life group. And if they vote for Republicans…. That person will then be blacklisted for life from jobs. The horror that an apostate be let in. It is probably already happening - look what happened if a person didn’t pledge an oath of support to BLM or complained about mandatory CRT indoctrination, er, training, at the office, particularly large corporations in the past 2 years.
"To be fair, there are some Christians that will tell people that they are going to hell."
When I worked at the Federal Reserve in NY, my boss was Jewish. Fairly Orthodox, I believe. Wouldn't pick up a phone on Saturday. One day, he conveyed some rather surprising technical information to me, and I said "Well, I'll be damned!" He looked thoughtful for a moment, and then said "Yes, you will be."
The NYT has an ethicist? She must not be very successful as the NYT is one of the most corrupt newspapers around. Isn't "NYT Ethicist" an oxymoron, like "jumbo shrimp"?
So is the person asking the question concerned that people hiding anti-abortion views are hurting the pro-life cause by not standing up and being counted?
Or is the questioner concerned that people holding anti-abortion views are going unpunished?
Wow.
How can we cancel you if you don't out yourself?
Scotty, beam me up... said...
Soon, employers will be checking to see if a closeted “Pro-Lifer” belongs to a Pro-Life group and/or has donated to a Pro-Life group. And if they vote for Republicans…
Universities have been doing that for decades.
I tell all my employees on day one they can go to hell.
I have a colleague with a secret.
If the secret was known the colleague would be devoured by the wolverines.
I would like to see my colleague devoured by the wolverines.
Is it wrong to want to see my colleague devoured by the wolverines?
My pronouns are they/them and I am wolverine-adjacent.
I am Laslo.
Some employers have an open-door policy. I have an open gate to Hell policy.
Take a look at many fields - academia, government, media, entertainment, law, etc. - and you will note that they are pervasively leaning left, and usually more than leaning. Why is that? Coincidence?
Of course there is ostracization, blacklisting, refusing to hire, etc. for people with disfavored views. Conservatives, pro-lifers, religious believers -- they all know to keep quiet until they know who they are speaking to, and to close the door when they discover other like-minded people.
They know, or have learned, not to put all that pro-life work experience on their resumes unless they want to get 200 rejection letters in response. They know they don't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting a lot of federal government jobs if they are not fellow travelers of the Deep State.
They even are smart enough when commenting in public forums to not use their full name or to use a pseudonym.
Blogger Scotty, beam me up... said...
Soon, employers will be checking to see if a closeted “Pro-Lifer” belongs to a Pro-Life group and/or has donated to a Pro-Life group
That already happened with Prop 8 (gay marriage) donors in California. The usual suspects got hold of a list of donors and attacked them. I remember a waitress in a Mexican restaurant got fired.
Scratch a liberal, you'll find a fascist. Every time.
The NYT has an ethicist on staff?
I know a guy who works for a supposedly apolitical private nonprofit organization that is in fact uniformly leftist.
The difficulty here is that his job really does require him to act, in his work capacity, in accordance with leftist policies - he has to pay out money to grantees who use that money in ways he personally disagrees with. He can do it without moral hazard; there is no taxpayer money at issue, nor does the organization fundraise. If they choose to spend this private bucket of money foolishly in his opinion, whatever; it's their decision, not his. He just has to make sure the checks clear.
So he withholds his political and economic opinions but does his work as if he shares those opinions with the members of the organization.
It wasn't clear to me whether the job of the coworker of the letter-writer had anything to do with abortion. It seems unlikely (how many jobs do?). But if acting pro-abortion is somehow relevant to her work and she does act pro-abortion, then it's a matter purely for her own conscience.
This is how I can see Catholic Democrat politicians squaring that circle: "As a representative of my constituency and my caucus I support abortion rights, but in my private life I am pro-life." While there's an issue of conscience there, it's between them and God.
IOW, butt out, nosy. Or is it time for me to start checking your private search history?
This kind of scumbag finds a way to justify the need to rat out Anne Frank and her family to the Gestapo. You know, because people shouldn't lie to the police.
It's the exact same mentality.
safe-secs
Hilarious.
I'm not hostile to gays or their lifestyle. In a lot of ways, many of the gays I work with have an enviable life. I do think, however, that anal sex especially with random strangers is risky behavior. Should I tell these co-workers that such behavior is unhygienic and dangerous? Some of these co-workers have cautioned me about wearing a mask or getting my booster shots. Should I, in the same helpful spirit, let them know that Mother Nature knows of no better way of passing on a disease than engaging in anal sex with them.
I do not believe, in my 30+ year career, that I ever once had a conversation with my colleagues about abortion. Nor do I recall overhearing one between others. I wasn't hiding anything. It never came up. Why should it?
Lefties have obsessions.
You just know the letter writer was hoping to get approval for outing her "friend," and must have been very disappointed in the response.
Many years ago it was considered intellectually stimulating to have good open debates on various subjects. People would be into it for the learning about each other and the sport of it all. Now, its blasphemous to have a different opinion at all. This is not good for a society that needs to adapt to survive. Where would the great new solutions come from?
This is how I can see Catholic Democrat politicians squaring that circle: "As a representative of my constituency and my caucus I support abortion rights, but in my private life I am pro-life." While there's an issue of conscience there, it's between them and God.
"Can"?? Mario Cuomo invented the whole "personally opposed, but..." dodge. And while the pro-aborts cheered -- just like they claimed they wanted abortion to be "safe, legal and rare" (which was complete BS because the ONLY thing they want is that abortion be legal, safe and rare be damned), or when they would say that "nobody is pro-abortion" -- pro-lifers and especially Catholic pro-lifers knew Cuomo was full of crap. Same with Biden when he was saying that BS. There is no "personally opposed" -- they are full on pro-abortion too.
Sure. They would never personally own slaves either. But they aren't going to oppose others owning slaves or expanding slavery into other territories. We've seen that argument before.
I would just point out that a guy who donated $15 to the defend Kyle Rittenhouse fund got fired. $15. It is very dangerous to be conservative these days. The radicals are happy to fire you. Multiple professors have been fired for not taking the new loyalty oath. That was the big issue with Jordan Peterson: compelled speech for trans pronouns. It is not dishonest to keep your beliefs to yourself. I wish more people would.
I think these "questioning" letters are analogous to the old "Letters to Penthouse".
Only once have I seen an advice columnist go after the letter writer, no matter how big a douchebag the letter writer is. The columnist was Ann Landers and she (sadly) apologized in a subsequent column.
Great article, thanks. Kudos to Appiah who seems to have a moral compass that goes beyond what she herself believes.
Ann said: "What if you know your colleague believes nonbelievers in her religion are going to Hell? Is she unethical not to let her coworkers know that's what she thinks of them? To state the obvious: This subject matter is not appropriate for the workplace! It's certainly not wrong to keep quiet about it. The difficult question would be what if she believed ethics required her to disclose."
Christianity maintains that non-believers will go to Hell, and also that Christians have a duty to spread the Gospel (Matthew 28:16-20). This isn't a hypothetical. Nor is it per se inappropriate for the work place.
A progressive is a person who is afraid that someone, somewhere, may not aprove of how they live.
Althouse question: "What if you know your colleague believes nonbelievers in her religion are going to Hell?"
Answer to original question: Don't disclose. Self defense is not unethical.
Answer to Althouse question: Don't disclose. Not workplace talk. Besides, if she is a Christian, it's not about her belief, it's about Jesus' declaration about the fate of nonbelievers.
This subject matter is not appropriate for the workplace!
Oh, those times are gone. Now tell us what your pronouns are so we can add them to your employee profile.
..."Here's another analogy: religion. What if you know your colleague believes nonbelievers in her religion are going to Hell? Is she unethical not to let her coworkers know that's what she thinks of them?"
In today's progressive liberal world, that reaction would depend entirely on whether the subject is Christian or Muslim.
To think that someone is going to Hell because they don't Believe is not the same as thinking someone will go to Hell because he's an evil, criminal, abuser and murderer.
One might feel sorry for both, I suppose, but mostly for the first category.
So in the hypo, I'd be interested in which category the Believer puts his unbelieving colleagues.
An atheist would likely prefer to be seen as belonging to the first category and not seen as being as morally deficient as in the second category.
Christianity maintains that non-believers will go to Hell
Christianity also has a particular understanding of "Hell" which many Hell-Fire Christians do not understand. And there is also a nuance (from Jesus Himself) over who exactly is a believer and a non-believer.
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name? Did we not drive out demons in your name? Did we not do mighty deeds in your name?’ Then I will declare to them solemnly, ‘I never knew you. Depart from me, you evildoers.’"
Don't think that just because you call yourself "Christian" that you got an automatic ticket to heaven. Likewise, those who might intellectually believe that they are not Christian, might be better Christians in the heart than those who do profess Him with their lips.
"‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father. Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world....Then the righteous will answer him and say, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you drink? When did we see you a stranger and welcome you, or naked and clothe you? When did we see you ill or in prison, and visit you?’ And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’"
So be careful in telling others they are going to Hell. Better yet, don't do it.
"We've seen that argument before."
And it has a lot of merit. Worshiping other gods is damnable (a violation of the greatest commandment per Jesus). I, like I presume most Christians, believe this. But I also support the first amendment and the right of my Hindu neighbors to worship many gods. You know, personally opposed, but... Cuomo didn't invent this. It came from the response to the religious wars that occurred in the 16th and 17th centuries.
I suspect that most vegetarians fall into the category of "personally opposed, but...". Those of us who think the sabbath should be made holy (i.e., no shopping, worldly entertainment, etc...) mostly do to these days. During the Civil War there were folks like Hodge (the president of Princeton) who fell into this category as it related to slavery.
Should abortion be outlawed because it is killing a human? What about capital punishment, euthanasia, or self-defense? Most people are OK with at least on of the later three, so there has to be some other condition in addition to killing a human that would justify the state outlawing abortion. The question is personhood and if the fetus should be considered a person, how the right of that person to live is to be balanced against the right of a mother to be free of the burden of pregnancy. If the woman did not consent to the sex that led to the pregnancy, should she still be obligated to to take on the risk (however small) birthing that person? I think the overwhelming majority of people would say no - there should be a rape exception. What if being pregnant created significant risk of life or use of a major body function (similar to the criterion for justifying lethal self defense)? Again, I think most people think there should be exceptions to abortion for the life of the health/life of the mother. But from what I understand from Catholicism, neither health nor rape justify abortion. So Catholic politicians that supported a ban of abortion with exceptions for rape and life would be in the same place as Cuomo in that they would be "personally opposed, but". We don't even have to go as far as abortion though. In Catholicism birth control, non-procreative sex, all sex outside of marriage, and divorce are morally illicit. So a Catholic pol who opposes outlawing birth control, masturbation, pornography, fornication, and divorce is in the same camp as Cuomo being "personally opposed, but..."
Frankly, in a multi-religious (protestant/catholic much less all the other religions and those that are irreligious) polity, I don't see how one can avoid being "personally opposed, but..." on at least some issues - even if you are a conservative.
We're in the last scene of Invasion of the Body Snatchers - pointing at the un-podded.
Is saying she is Pro-Life really just about her not being in favor of killing babies or is it code for "she might be a Trump voter"?
She hopes people will see her as a good person and not judge her first on her anti-abortion views.
I'll bet there were people in Carthage that thought like this..
"I'm Pretty Sure, that my neighbor has anti-Baal views. She hopes people will see her as a good person.. BUT she seems to think that child sacrifice is somehow "wrong"
@ hawkeyedjb @ 9:47 AM:
I was referring to private institutions in my comments and I should have added universities and governments as well. I am well acquainted to the hard left biases of government employees as well as the governments themselves. I worked in state government for 3 1/2 decades. When I started at the agency I worked for, maybe 10% of the employees were conservatives, most left of center and a smattering who voted for both parties. At the end, there were no more moderates and there was only a very small handful of us conservatives left and we kept our heads down due to lefty radicals. Hence, I have used a pseudonym tied to a generic gmail account that I only use for online commentary here and elsewhere to make it hard for most people to figure out my real identity. My only satisfaction was when we were forced to do mandatory online CRT “training”, that the lefty radicals were also forced to take it despite already being true believers. That put a smile on my face while I took it (and I then quickly forgot what I had just “learned”.).
As for public universities, at least those in red states, governors and legislatures need to crack down and outlaw CRT and like practices, especially in the education colleges at the universities. If faculty and administrators don’t like it, invite them to leave or change their attitude to be more open minded.
Scotty
The SOL unborn babies have no votes. But the Cartels in Mexico supply replacements that vote as told..
Dear Kwame,
I believe that people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin. In order to keep my job, I am required to go to and participate in a workplace training session on DEI. I have reviewed the training materials, which were prepared by Ibram X. Kendi and Robin D’Angelo. I don’t agree with anything I read. I am also required to insure that all my direct reports attend the training. Should I go to the training and insist that my subordinates go to the training even though I will have to lie my head off? Oh yeah, there is a pledge they want me sign at the end that says that I agree with everything discussed and will implement it in my work.
I am a professor at a top 10 liberal arts college. And I am coming up for tenure next year. Please advise me.
Kwame replies: Lie your head off you racist scumbag. What did you say your name was?
If you don't have hidden sides and facets that aren't always visible to other people then you are very one-dimensional indeed.
"I struggle... with what I think of as duplicitousness: She actively restricts who she tells about her pro-life views..."
Of course, completely taken for granted here is the notion that progs will vilify an honest pro-lifer--that, given prog hegemony, honesty in fact will hurt professionally.
"Could you choose to see abortion as wrong?"
No way. It would be denying women's autonomy. Sacred. Essential.
Althouse: "This subject matter is not appropriate for the workplace!"
Agreed. But many workplaces are currently imposing prog ideology, so what's appropriate these days?
But, speaking very strictly, I don't quite understand the circumstances in which it would be inappropriate for a faithful Christian, who believes the unconverted are doomed, to try and save souls. If you really believe someone is likely to suffer what you consider the most horrible fate, wouldn't you do everything possible to try and prevent that? (Of course, the Althouse axiom that people tend not to believe what they professs to believe may come into play here.)
In my first faculty appointment, I learned there is a fine line between people wanting to know your views, and people wanting to know your views so they can hate you for them.
In this one, I don't talk politics. I'm sure my (mercifully few) more activist colleagues suspect me of being one of Them, and would love for me to say something to confirm it. The analogy to closeted gays has a certain resonance: I can hold any politics I want, as long as I don't throw it in their faces by, you know, ever talking about it.
@Misinfominimalism — Do not confuse orthodox Christianity with certain fundamentalist or evangelical sects. Both Catholicism and most mainline Protestant churches consign the unbaptized not to Hell, but to the mercy of God.
Christianity maintains that non-believers will go to Hell, and also that Christians have a duty to spread the Gospel (Matthew 28:16-20). This isn't a hypothetical. Nor is it per se inappropriate for the work place.
I don't agree with the last statement, though maybe we agree that it's up to the employer to set the rules about what is appropriate or inappropriate, and in what context. If I were an employer I would strongly discourage political and religious activity and discussions in the office as being counterproductive (unless they are related to the business somehow).
When I began work at my current job in 2009, I noticed some admins with big Obama posters in their cubicles. If I were in charge I would have ordered them taken down. I have no doubt that if someone had put up MAGA posters in 2016 those same admins would have complained. On the other hand, since my employer is affiliated to a religion, religious topics aren't out of place, but I would deem proselytizing fellow employees inappropriate.
Reportedly 50% of East Germans were either part of the Stasi, or on its payroll.
Don't worry though people, everything is going great!
Renember the good old days when people obeyed the unwritten rule not to discuss religion or politics in mixed company.
You can see how it is so very triggering when a minority opinion is schmeered on the majorities bagel. Eg the way you people apoplectically gang up on the libtards with Venum and flourishes.
'Round here, we burn witches. Problem is, some of those sneaky swine keep their witch-type beliefs to themselves. This is part of the reason we burn 'em. Too crafty. Not open at-all about their true selves.
This errored out on the first try, so if it's redundant, no need to post both.
'Round here, we burn witches. Problem is, some of those sneaky swine keep their witch-type beliefs to themselves. This is part of the reason we burn 'em. Too crafty. Not open at-all about their true selves.
How do moral purists stay in ANY kind of job? Honest question. In many cases you don't get to pick your clients or customers. You have to work with clients doing things you may not agree with. If one has a problem with a co-worker with disagreeable views, how on earth can that same person provide services to a client doing things they don't like, AND take their money in the form of their paycheck?
While not 100-percent accurate, one can usually determine another person's politics simply by observing whether or not that person talks about politics.
Same for vegans.
"And while I disagree with her views, it is the potential lying that is most questionable to me."
Bullshit.
Hi Howard--You and others add a lot to these comments by providing a different point of view, which demonstrates that intelligent people can look at things differently.
Here is the dilemma that all of us are wrestling with: how are we going to handle demands to make unreasonable professions of faith in a work context. Higher education is a good place to focus because academics are supposedly in favor of open discussion, but the same issues apply at CocaCola, Chase Bank, or McDonald's. How would you handle a demand that you commit to the line taken by Kendi and D'Angelo on antiracism and white fragility if you disagreed with their arguments? How about professors taken off the playing field for quoting Mark Twain, Frederick Douglass, or others using the "n-word"? Vulgar is vulgar, but shouldn't students be prepared for world that doesn't see them as special? Can anyone have a rational discussion of that word today? Who can? Why? Are those good reasons? How can anyone defeat a word or concept that can't be spoken?
And what about considering people as individuals rather than members of stereotypical groups? Is that important, ethical, or just? What was the fault in Dr. King's dream? Is there one?
I'm addressing these comments to you, Howard, because you are both intelligent and reasonable, as are many of Althouse's lefty commenters.
There are many things that should not be discussed at work, but there is some work that cannot avoid these things.
It was not Republicans who came up with and enforced the federal loyalty acts in 1948 or so. It was not Republicans who got people fired for not signing loyalty oaths in the late 40s.
It was not a republican president who jailed an Ohio man in 1917 for saying he would not buy war bonds. In a private conversation in his own house.
It was not Republicans who enacted the unconstitutional sedition act and jailed a presidential candidate (Debs) and others for his and their seditious opinions.
It is not Republicans who are disappointed that J6 paraders cannot, because of a minor technical issue, be prosecuted for sedition (technical issue is that there is no law against sedition)
It was not Republicans who resurrected the kkk across the USA (esp Wisconsin)
And so on
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Work is generally a poor location to advocate for much of anything, other than things related to work. If you make friends with colleagues and discuss that outside of work, that is another thing.
The problem is when work, or the people at work, keep throwing this sort of thing in your face and, in more extreme examples, essentially require a loyalty oath to continue to work there. And it typically only goes one way, with the woke insisting all bow before them.
Laslo @ 9:56: Laslo! So good to see you! And your post is characteristically whack-oblique-brilliant. Cheers!
RideSpaceMountain,
Elizabeth Cleveland famous told us 160 years ago that there's no sects in heaven https://www.poetrynook.com/poem/no-sects-heaven
Now you have me wondering, is there, perhaps, safe-secs in Heaven?
JOhn LGBTQ+ Henry
Typo in my comment “woujj on d ever have been written” —> “would not ever have been written.”
Apologies.
>>Laslo @ 9:56: Laslo! So good to see you! And your post is characteristically whack-oblique-brilliant. Cheers!
Heartily agree. Haven't noticed any other recent posts.
--gpm
I think it would be a convenient idea to know who the non-Christians among us are.
Since they are already going to Hell anyway, we can have them do things like steal the next door neighbor's newspaper for us. I was reminded of this the other day watching the Seinfeld ep where Puddy asks Elaine to do just that for just this reason. (On www.watchseinfeld.net 24/7 uninterrupted streaming of Seinfeld shows)
On a more serious note, I was once staying in a hotel having breakfast in the lobby. There were a couple of Hasidic Jews that I saw standing by the elevator for 5-10 minutes. Finally, I went to go back to my room and they rode the elevator with me. When they got in, they asked me to push the floor button.
It dawned on me that they were practicing the letter of the Law by not actually operating the elevator. They were probably violating the spirit of the law by riding in it.
Sort of like SDA's keep the letter of the law by eating things like Skallops (imitation, vegetable, scallops) while keeping the letter of the law by not eating shellfish. We eat a lot of them in my house, everyone but me loves them. I lve scallops but have not had any since I joined the church. I don't feel right eating fake scallops and don't care much for the taste anyway.
We all have our foibles.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Homophobia is a disorder through projection. Don't say trans.
Transhumane philosophy is socially progressive and carbon-neutral through the performance of human rites.
That said, religion is a behavioral protocol, morality in a universal frame, ethics its relativistic sibling, and law their politically consensual cousin.
I had a dinner last year with 2 editors who I have known and written for for 20-25 years. One a lot, the other 2-3 articles.
It was a social dinner but the one who I wrote for occasionally asked me to write an article for him. We agreed on a general topic and length and I understood he was going to follow it up. Conversation moved on to other things.
One of the things was Kung Flu. He started talking about how many people had died of it. I commented, casually, that we needed to separate how many died OF kung flu and how many died WITH kung flu. That is, someone who got shot to death after testing positive, is counted as a kung flu death but should not be. Kung flu had nothing to do with the death.
The editor got all upset. The of/with distinction was something that only Trumpers believed, it was conspiracy theory and so on. I was like "OK, whatever" and the other editor jumped in to change the subject.
He never did hire me to write that article. Not keeping my mouth shut in a semi-professional setting probably cost me $500. Normally, I am smart enough to keep my mouth shut in this kind of setting. But as I said, I've known this guy for a long time and never figured him to be like this. Whether or not he agreed with me about the of/with, I figured we could discuss it. I could, he couldn't. Sure am glad I didn't come out as a MAGAista. There probably would have been blood in the pasta.
I fully sympathize with the woman not wanting to discuss abortion.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
This may be off topic here but I was thinking about this pronoun hubbub the other day.
Why does anyone need to know my pronouns? If we are having a conversation, the only pronouns that will be used are "you" and perhaps I/we. The only time anyone will ever use my pronouns is talking about me to someone else.
Perhaps the best thing for me to do is keep my pronouns secret so nobody can talk about me.
Asshole: "so John, what are your pronouns?"
Me: "They are confidential. I do not share them with anyone. If you want to talk about me, use my name, not pronouns."
John LGBTQ+ Henry
Blogger anonprof said...
Those of us who think the sabbath should be made holy
Or we could have knock-down, drag-out about when the Sabbath is, could we not?
Is it the last day of the week, Saturday, the day on which God rested? Also the day on which Jesus rested in the tomb.
Or is it the first day of the week, Sunday, the day on which Jesus was resurrected?
In Spanish we say "El Sabado es El Sabado." (The Saturday is the Sabbath)
In my house we keep the Sabbath but I have no problem with anyone keeping The Lord's day (Sunday) or any other day. Or not keeping any day at all.. My problem is more semantical than theological. Sunday is not the Sabbath though many people call it that.
John LGBTQ+ Henry
1. The co-worker is not ethically bound do reveal her pro-life stance.
2. The letter-writer is ethically bound to inform all her pro-murder co-workers that this woman is pro-life, so that they can confront her and drive her from the workplace. Such are the 'ethics' of liberals.
Sort of like SDA's keep the letter of the law by eating things like Skallops (imitation, vegetable, scallops) while keeping the letter of the law by not eating shellfish.
When my husband was growing up his father used to take the kids to Wendy’s for cheeseburgers at midnight on Fridays during Lent. :-D
I always feel a twinge of guilt when I’m too busy or lazy to prepare fish for dinner so we order cheese pizza. Or for that matter, there’s the guilt associated with preparing a really nice fish dinner too! Guess I got a healthy dose of Catholic guilt but these do seem like examples of following the letter rather than the spirit of the law.
Is it the last day of the week, Saturday, the day on which God rested?
which starts on Friday Night, at Sunset
John henry said...
Asshole: "so John, what are your pronouns?"
Me: "They are confidential.
That's why gilbar answers: my pronouns are None of Your Business
They were probably violating the spirit of the law by riding in it.
Actually, if they asked you to press the button instead of hinting at it, they probably violated the letter (“a” letter?) of the law. But we all make mistakes.
I would like to confound woke gatherings by stating that my pronouns are "we, us, and our." As an homage to our common humanity.
Or, in the purest sense---aren't "my" pronouns "I, me, and mine?" What other pronouns would I be using to refer to myself?? Hmmmm...maybe "it puts the lotion on."
It is the workplace. I do not care if my fellow workers think I am going to Hell, so long as they don't try to send me there early.
Just do your work, and otherwise we're all good. MYOB.
One day, he conveyed some rather surprising technical information to me, and I said "Well, I'll be damned!" He looked thoughtful for a moment, and then said "Yes, you will be."
Damnation is really not a Jewish thing, and the Talmud is very explicit in praising “the righteous of the nations” (that is, non-Jews), particularly noting that they have a spot in the world to come. So - unless you’ve specifically been very bad - you should be fine.
She hopes people will see her as a good person and not judge her first on her anti-abortion views.
One of the ideas in that sentence is being anti-abortion disqualifies one from being a good person. The people around her must be very intolerant and judgemental... . Apparently one is not allowed a dissenting view on a controversial topic these days in her work (and personal) environment. Why is it that progressives these days have forgotten the ideal of tolerance that they used to preach?
Elaine: Arby's. Beef and cheese and do you believe in god?
Puddy: Yes.
Elaine: Oh. So, you're pretty religious?
Puddy: That's right.
Elaine: So is it a problem that I'm not really religious?
Puddy: Not for me.
Elaine: Why not?
Puddy: I'm not the one going to hell.
later
Puddy: Elaine, they forgot to deliver your paper today. Why don't you just
grab that one.
Elaine: 'Cause that belongs to Mr. Potato Guy, that's his.
Puddy: C'mon, get it.
Elaine: Well if you want it, you get it.
Puddy: Sorry, thou shalt not steal.
Elaine: Oh, but it's ok for me?
Puddy: What do you care, you know where you're going.
"... because she fears it will hurt her advancement prospects and could end friendships. She hopes people will see her as a good person and not judge her first on her anti-abortion views."
IOW, she knows her co-workers are evil scumbags who are utterly intolerant of disagreeing viewpoints, but she puts up with you assholes anyway, because she has to in order to feed herself / her family
And so this wannabe junior Gestapo member wants to know if it's ok to out her, and try to destroy her life.
Because of course she wants to know that
Remember that time right after the Memories Pizza thing when Althouse encouraged Christians to out themselves specifically so progtards could have convenient targets for harassment and cancellation?
Good times.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा