Cornell Antisemite rejects interview, proudly telling Jewish employer he won’t work for a Jew

[rosends]

That’s a cop out. Do you support tax dollars being spent on investigating a private communication?

a cop out? LOL. It is an honest answer through which i am trying to keep the focus on the subject of this thread, not your hijacking of it.

 

[cowboy fan]

a cop out? LOL. It is an honest answer through which i am trying to keep the focus on the subject of this thread, not your hijacking of it.

No, it’s a cop out. You won’t say whether or not you support tax dollars funding an investigation of a private communication.

 

[Moonglow]

Actually, it's called career killer.

And that is a liberty issue. During the Drug War I refused to work for companies that drug tested.

 

[cowboy fan]

The “Jew guy”?! And “Jew guy” is whining?! And not a word for the disgusting little Jew-hater?

Yes, “Jew guy.” As opposed to a “white guy” or “Canadian guy” or the “Cornell guy.”

Do you not even know the facts of your own story?

 

[cowboy fan]

Another POS for the ignore list.

You can’t discuss your own story, so you insult. Brilliant.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

And that is a liberty issue. During the Drug War I refused to work for companies that drug tested.

As did most dopers, and not because of 'principles', but because you would never pass one anyway, so big deal..

 

[cowboy fan]

As did most dopers, and not because of 'principles', but because you would never pass one anyway, so big deal..

I am not a “doper,” and I would never take a drug test.

 

[Moonglow]

As did most dopers, and not because of 'principles', but because you would never pass one anyway, so big deal..

There were many ways to beat a drug test if one wanted to work for people who tested them.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

There were many ways to beat a drug test if one wanted to work for people who tested them.

And you were too drugged up to make any of them work. Plus they also randomly test employees afterwards as well.

 

[rosends]

The term "anti-semitism" is very much like the term "terrorist". Both are used so often as terms of propaganda that they have lost all meaning. They seem to be connected to various hasbara that are so common these days.

The term has a definition (whether or not you like it) and if an action meets the definition, why has it lost meaning?

here is the definition:
"Antisemitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews. Rhetorical and physical manifestations of antisemitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities"
and here are two examples,
"

1. Making mendacious, dehumanizing, demonizing, or stereotypical allegations about Jews as such or the power of Jews as collective — such as, especially but not exclusively, the myth about a world Jewish conspiracy or of Jews controlling the media, economy, government or other societal institutions.
2. Accusing Jews as a people of being responsible for real or imagined wrongdoing committed by a single Jewish person or group, or even for acts committed by non-Jews.

"
this was the student's statement:
"“My experiences with Jews have not been pleasant, both in person and online. This is not to say I haven’t had positive experiences, but on the aggregate that is not the case,”

so he is taking some of his personal and discrete interactions and generalizing to the group. Interesting that he doesn't generalize from his positive experiences. His stereotyping based on his personal and limited scope of experiences is offensive and, as the DEFINITION expresses, a manifestation of anti-Semitism.

Again, he has the right to say and feel whatever he wants. But if other people recognize his opinion as rooted in anti-Semitism, other people have the same right to act in response.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

I wonder if he posts here.

Lots of what he has going around in this forum.......

 

[rosends]

No, it’s a cop out. You won’t say whether or not you support tax dollars funding an investigation of a private communication.

And you won't focus on the problematic statement. That makes every one of your posts a cop out.

 

[Moonglow]

And you were too drugged up to make any of them work. Plus they also randomly test employees afterwards as well.

It is the principle of the act of invading your privacy. I ended up being self employed for thirty five years. The best guy I have ever worked for was me.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

It is the principle of the act of invading your privacy. I ended up being self employed for thirty five years. The best guy I have ever worked for was me.

That's good. Stats show that dopers cause more than their share of on the job accidents and are generally dishonest and unreliable. That means you were forced to work by yourself and reduced the chances of you ficking up somebody else's life.

 

[Moonglow]

That's good. Stats show that dopers cause more than their share of on the job accidents and are generally dishonest and unreliable. That means you were forced to work by yourself and reduced the chances of you ficking up somebody else's life.

I worked with a crew I hired because the work I did was heavy labor. I was a Mason. I never had one accident while working. I raised four kids and bought two houses and 43 acres with my earnings from being self-employed and retired five years ago. Now I am a real estate agent, and I still get high on my own homegrown supply in my home.

 

[Pastelli]

 

[Dekster]

the question isn't about what he "can" or "can not" do, but what we, as a society are condoning. People are becoming empowered to make public statements which dismiss all Jews simply because they are Jews. The freedom to express your opinion doesn't mean to escape the societal impact and consequence of your opinion.

He didn't ask anybody to condone his decision. It was a private communication that the company irresponsibly put out there in such a way that made it easy for outraged internet users to stalk him down. There is no more "societal impact" in him not wanting to work for that company than there is when a member of the left refuses to work for conservatives.

 

[rosends]

He didn't ask anybody to condone his decision. It was a private communication that the company irresponsibly put out there in such a way that made it easy for outraged internet users to stalk him down.

he made his statement public


if someone is comfortable saying "I don't want to work for a Jew" then he should be comfortable with the consequences of that statement. He wants to claim he is a victim because he didn't want other people to know his decisions are driven by anti-Semitism. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

There is no more "societal impact" in him not wanting to work for that company than there is when a member of the left refuses to work for conservatives.

I can't compare the relative impact so I won't try. I appreciate what the employer did as it serves 2 purposes -- to teach younger people of the consequences of their actions, and to warn other employers that this person lets hate drive his decisions and would not be a good, professional choice for anyone. If someone applied to my workplace and refused the interview because he is an anti-Semite, I would certainly contact similar companies and caution them that they might want to stay far away from this applicant.

 

[Dekster]

he made his statement public


if someone is comfortable saying "I don't want to work for a Jew" then he should be comfortable with the consequences of that statement. He wants to claim he is a victim because he didn't want other people to know his decisions are driven by anti-Semitism. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

I can't compare the relative impact so I won't try. I appreciate what the employer did as it serves 2 purposes -- to teach younger people of the consequences of their actions, and to warn other employers that this person lets hate drive his decisions and would not be a good, professional choice for anyone. If someone applied to my workplace and refused the interview because he is an anti-Semite, I would certainly contact similar companies and caution them that they might want to stay far away from this applicant.

He wasn't trying to play victim. He was stating the reason for his preference not to work for them. The fact that you advocate for turning someone into your victim because they don't share the same values as you do is precisely what is wrong with both sides of the political spectrum in this country.

 

[EdwinAMartin]

I worked with a crew I hired because the work I did was heavy labor. I was a Mason. I never had one accident while working. I raised four kids and bought two houses and 43 acres with my earnings from being self-employed and retired five years ago. Now I am a real estate agent, and I still get high on my own homegrown supply in my home.

More like granma finally died and left you her place.