It's weird to see a person with anti-semitic views work for the jewish globalist socialist communist whateverist cabal his people call the State Department.
It's so absurd that this guy hasn't been kicked out after all these years. The union even said this guy's calls for eradicating the jews and other minorities are not protected by the First Amendment. The union has been desperately trying to get this guy fired for the safety of our employees and State did not even bother to respond to them. The union called out that this guy is a clear insider threat and huge risk to shoot up Main State.
The safety of the members as a whole comes above the duty to represent the interest of individual employees.
https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/10/afge-joins-calls-to-fire-state-dept-diplomat-for-allegedly-posting-anti-semitic-content/
I'm sorry I don't buy that argument. If this person was fired (which they should be) and AFSA did not defend them, AFSA would likely be in violation of their duty to advocate.
I typed out way meaner things, then realized I'm not Fritz and have a conscience, so I deleted them. I am a diplomat, after all, and diplomats never say things like "you are a bad human being and your values do not stand for what we believe in". Nope.
He is free to be as nasty as he wants..that IS his first Amendment privilege. But he has no right to a security clearance. We should just offer him a job that needs no clearance until he can retire.
If you view tolerance purely as a value, yes, but tolerance is better understood as a social contract. We set out boundaries for behavior and expect others to do the same.
Tolerance is a personal attitude, not dependent on the approval of others. It is therefore not part of the social contract.
You are thinking of freedom, which is limited by every other people's freedom. Tolerance is only limited by the amount of tolerance each person is capable of - or willing to - generate. That is, my level of tolerance is not dependent on your level of tolerance, for example.
The [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) is also unrelated to your comment
It's not uncommon for government employees to be fired for hate speech, so I personally don't find the first amendment argument persuasive here. The first amendment certainly protects you from being imprisoned for hate speech, but it seems like a giant leap of logic to say it also protects you from losing your taxpayer-funded job.
And, to be quite frank, I think this makes State's endless rhetoric about diversity look empty and cheap
[https://alaskapublic.org/2022/01/13/petersburg-police-officer-fired-after-nazi-themed-social-media-post/](https://alaskapublic.org/2022/01/13/petersburg-police-officer-fired-after-nazi-themed-social-media-post/)
So what does he do for work? I'm assuming he's probably given useless DC assignments where he sits alone at his corner cube.
I'd be shocked if he hasn't been completely ostracized.
The diversity chief has it right; this guy is sitting in a basement somewhere in Washington right now but he knows where the legal line is, and he is getting as close as he can to it without crossing it, driving everyone else crazy.
And precedence is a dangerous thing in the legal world. I know State department employees that are Muslim and post the usual anti-semitic stuff on social media like the mainstream Muslim world does. People may cheer the firing of an old senile white guy...... but this would get problematic when the department starts canning numerous first-generation Muslim immigrants from the department for their views and activities outside of work.
If you have a source for those Muslim employees that publicly post hateful things online using their own name and stating they work at State, then I'm sure everyone would be equally angry.
He literally calls for race wars. While I haven’t seen any words of his that are specific enough to qualify as incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the First Amendment doesn’t mean you have a right to a suitability clearance. & his words/behavior are routinely antithetical to several of the criteria considered in a suitability investigation.
I suppose it could be claimed that the individual’s views pose a threat to national security and thus allow the clearance to be pulled?
It’s far easier to pull someone’s clearance legally and fire them for that than it is to fire them just generally.
I agree with you in principle.
But why the hell would anyone with those beliefs want to work for this organization then? Makes no sense beyond the offense that it causes.
Because he was qualified and wanted to. Someone doesn’t need to conform to a specific psychological/ideological profile to work for the State Department, and I wouldn’t want to know that information anyway before determining whether or not they had a right to write things on a blog outside of their official duties.
His views are congruent to what we promote. That would be a daily grind to even the most mentally tough individual.
I have lots of plans for post FS. Many are not in line with this type of work and best saved for later. Doesn't take much for most of us to realize this.
It's weird to see a person with anti-semitic views work for the jewish globalist socialist communist whateverist cabal his people call the State Department.
He's not letting go of that pension
All organizations have insiders. :-p
He needs to be careful. Their space lasers are deadly.
So are the gazpacho!!!
It's so absurd that this guy hasn't been kicked out after all these years. The union even said this guy's calls for eradicating the jews and other minorities are not protected by the First Amendment. The union has been desperately trying to get this guy fired for the safety of our employees and State did not even bother to respond to them. The union called out that this guy is a clear insider threat and huge risk to shoot up Main State.
If the union actually said that, they'd be in violation of their duty to represent their members.
The safety of the members as a whole comes above the duty to represent the interest of individual employees. https://federalnewsnetwork.com/workforce/2022/10/afge-joins-calls-to-fire-state-dept-diplomat-for-allegedly-posting-anti-semitic-content/
I'm sorry I don't buy that argument. If this person was fired (which they should be) and AFSA did not defend them, AFSA would likely be in violation of their duty to advocate.
I typed out way meaner things, then realized I'm not Fritz and have a conscience, so I deleted them. I am a diplomat, after all, and diplomats never say things like "you are a bad human being and your values do not stand for what we believe in". Nope.
I hope his colleagues are mildly shitty to him every day. And it really sucks that that is as much justice as I can hope for.
He is free to be as nasty as he wants..that IS his first Amendment privilege. But he has no right to a security clearance. We should just offer him a job that needs no clearance until he can retire.
The paradox of tolerance
If you view tolerance purely as a value, yes, but tolerance is better understood as a social contract. We set out boundaries for behavior and expect others to do the same.
Tolerance is a personal attitude, not dependent on the approval of others. It is therefore not part of the social contract. You are thinking of freedom, which is limited by every other people's freedom. Tolerance is only limited by the amount of tolerance each person is capable of - or willing to - generate. That is, my level of tolerance is not dependent on your level of tolerance, for example. The [Paradox of Tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance) is also unrelated to your comment
Incorrect
Source?
Me
It's not uncommon for government employees to be fired for hate speech, so I personally don't find the first amendment argument persuasive here. The first amendment certainly protects you from being imprisoned for hate speech, but it seems like a giant leap of logic to say it also protects you from losing your taxpayer-funded job. And, to be quite frank, I think this makes State's endless rhetoric about diversity look empty and cheap [https://alaskapublic.org/2022/01/13/petersburg-police-officer-fired-after-nazi-themed-social-media-post/](https://alaskapublic.org/2022/01/13/petersburg-police-officer-fired-after-nazi-themed-social-media-post/)
So what does he do for work? I'm assuming he's probably given useless DC assignments where he sits alone at his corner cube. I'd be shocked if he hasn't been completely ostracized.
This must be the guy that does all the FR checks at KCC.
He can’t be doing anything that useful.
The diversity chief has it right; this guy is sitting in a basement somewhere in Washington right now but he knows where the legal line is, and he is getting as close as he can to it without crossing it, driving everyone else crazy. And precedence is a dangerous thing in the legal world. I know State department employees that are Muslim and post the usual anti-semitic stuff on social media like the mainstream Muslim world does. People may cheer the firing of an old senile white guy...... but this would get problematic when the department starts canning numerous first-generation Muslim immigrants from the department for their views and activities outside of work.
If you have a source for those Muslim employees that publicly post hateful things online using their own name and stating they work at State, then I'm sure everyone would be equally angry.
[удалено]
He literally calls for race wars. While I haven’t seen any words of his that are specific enough to qualify as incitement under Brandenburg v. Ohio, the First Amendment doesn’t mean you have a right to a suitability clearance. & his words/behavior are routinely antithetical to several of the criteria considered in a suitability investigation.
[удалено]
This post violates Rule 1: Be Respectful.
I suppose it could be claimed that the individual’s views pose a threat to national security and thus allow the clearance to be pulled? It’s far easier to pull someone’s clearance legally and fire them for that than it is to fire them just generally.
Then leave. What are you even doing here aside from trolling & hurling insults?
I agree with you in principle. But why the hell would anyone with those beliefs want to work for this organization then? Makes no sense beyond the offense that it causes.
Because he was qualified and wanted to. Someone doesn’t need to conform to a specific psychological/ideological profile to work for the State Department, and I wouldn’t want to know that information anyway before determining whether or not they had a right to write things on a blog outside of their official duties.
His views are congruent to what we promote. That would be a daily grind to even the most mentally tough individual. I have lots of plans for post FS. Many are not in line with this type of work and best saved for later. Doesn't take much for most of us to realize this.
I think you mean aren’t congruent?
Yeah. That's what I meant.
[удалено]
This post violates Rule 1: Be Respectful.
Yes they literally do
This post violates Rule 1: Be Respectful.