Page 7 | Someone spreading race hate. Report to employer?

emma91july · 2025-01-20T13:58:13+00:00

Someone I know is spreading race hate (as well as Islamophobia - separate kind of hate, I understand) on social media. I have "reported" some of most recent posts on Facebook (before blocking the person). Facebook agreed that the posts breached their standards and have notified the person. I understand from others that this person continues to post hate-mongering stuff on Facebook. They work in a very "customer-centric" in the heart of a very diverse community. Would you report this person anonomously to their employer? There is a whiteblowing procedure in place. Their employer is very hot on equality, diversity, respect for all etc.

user243245346 · 22/01/2025 13:16

JubileeJuice · 22/01/2025 12:38

Saying that a woman is an adult human female is a scientific fact. It's also just a statement and isn't hateful in any way.

Saying that disabled people are a burden on society, have no value to anyone, should all be culled, and you should go and kill yourself so your husband and children are free, is hateful.

In your opinion. However many people claim saying men cannot be women is harmful and hateful and untrue. People have lost their jobs for that and been barred from social media.

I personally think live and let live. Stop acting like the Stasi and let people voice their opinions even if you disagree

Feelingathomenow · 22/01/2025 13:23

Digdongdoo · 22/01/2025 13:06

If their downfall impacts those around them, it is nobodies fault but their own.
Posting hate online absolutely does cause harm. And you think it should be ignored just in case it might cause second hand harm. Some pretty twisted logic.

Show quote history

Where did I say it should be ignored? Once again you’re reading what you want to see in order to construct an argument against it. What I have said it quite the contrary, I have stated that if a person thinks a crime has been committed the proper thing to do is contact the police. What I don’t want to see is lynch mobs roaming round deciding who should have their livelihoods threatened because this sets a very dangerous dystopian precedent.

Digdongdoo · 22/01/2025 13:28

Feelingathomenow · 22/01/2025 13:23

Where did I say it should be ignored? Once again you’re reading what you want to see in order to construct an argument against it. What I have said it quite the contrary, I have stated that if a person thinks a crime has been committed the proper thing to do is contact the police. What I don’t want to see is lynch mobs roaming round deciding who should have their livelihoods threatened because this sets a very dangerous dystopian precedent.

Edited

Show quote history

It's hardly a lynch mob is it? And frankly, I disagree. Too much discrimination still exists precisely because nobody ever does anything about it. Marginalised people have a voice now and some people obviously don't like that.

JubileeJuice · 22/01/2025 13:41

user243245346 · 22/01/2025 13:16

In your opinion. However many people claim saying men cannot be women is harmful and hateful and untrue. People have lost their jobs for that and been barred from social media.

I personally think live and let live. Stop acting like the Stasi and let people voice their opinions even if you disagree

Show quote history

Bit sockpuppet-y.

No, I won't let people voice their opinions, if their opinion is that all disabled people should be dead. I mean, they can voice that as much as they want, but they shouldn't be surprised when there are consequences.

xILikeJamx · 22/01/2025 13:42

Feelingathomenow · 22/01/2025 12:44

But normally the phrase used is something along the lines of “not posting anything on social media likely to bring the company on to o disrepute” or similar. Now it would be possible to argue that someone complaining they are horrified that the company’s employee saying x is still employed and this has brought the company into disrepute (a couple of there might write in the same). Now arguably that employee has done nothing other than share an opinion.(and be a bit stupid allowing the link to their employer).

The original post here talks about “race hate” this is a specific crime.

The proper and moral way to deal with this is through the legal system. No doubt if that person is convicted they will quite rightly lose their job.

If it’s not a crime it is someone’s personal opinion. There’s lots of threads on here (and elsewhere) discussing whether “Muslim Pakistani grooming gang” is racist or Islamaphobic.

No one should be sacked because of someone’s personal opinion(I appreciate there are degrees- but again subjective) the legal route is the correct one.

Show quote history

If you're being racist in the opinion of the company you work for, you should be sacked and you'll deserve it. Someone highlighting something they think is racist to the company is never in the wrong.

Good people should pursue all routes to disrupt racists' lives.

Funnily enough I was on Twitter at lunch time and saw a post with the quote "The road to fascism is lined with people telling you to stop overreacting", which I think is an excellent way to put it

Feelingathomenow · 22/01/2025 13:55

xILikeJamx · 22/01/2025 13:42

If you're being racist in the opinion of the company you work for, you should be sacked and you'll deserve it. Someone highlighting something they think is racist to the company is never in the wrong.

Good people should pursue all routes to disrupt racists' lives.

Funnily enough I was on Twitter at lunch time and saw a post with the quote "The road to fascism is lined with people telling you to stop overreacting", which I think is an excellent way to put it

Show quote history

The trouble is, what are you actually being sacked for? Say I put a post up that said there needs to be an inquiry into Muslim Pakistani grooming gangs. Someone writes to my employer and says that only in unreliable company would employ someone so racist, they’re going to spread this all over social media (they might have got their friends to also write in)

The company looks at my employment contract that says I can’t post anything that brings the company into disrepute. they don’t know if what i said was racist. But they know I’ve done something that because of others reactions (beyond my control) the company’s reputation is at risk so they sack me. Now was I being racist?

We have to be very careful now about comments being shut down through accusations like this. It is dangerous. The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Note that I have never suggested doing nothing - I have stated that the correct response is to inform the police if you think a crime is being committed - that is not doing nothing.

The road to fascism might be lined with people telling you you’re overreacting- but fascism itself is full of people overreacting to situations and using it as an excuse to persecute others. Those others might indeed be people exercising freedom of speech that certain other groups don’t like (I’ll use my previous example of TRAs -who adore the phrase you used - killing peoples careers for believing in biological reality)

Chuchoter · 22/01/2025 14:00

They aren't spreading anything, they are expressing their views on social
Media and people can choose to agree, disagree, report and or block.

Ghruch · 22/01/2025 14:24

xILikeJamx · 22/01/2025 13:42

If you're being racist in the opinion of the company you work for, you should be sacked and you'll deserve it. Someone highlighting something they think is racist to the company is never in the wrong.

Good people should pursue all routes to disrupt racists' lives.

Funnily enough I was on Twitter at lunch time and saw a post with the quote "The road to fascism is lined with people telling you to stop overreacting", which I think is an excellent way to put it

Show quote history

The trouble is that we are facing a new type of totalitarianism now. If someone finds speech 'hateful', they have the right to stop it. On the face of it, it might seem impossible to find fault with that, but you only have to try a thought experiment on a type of speech that some people find 'hateful' and others don't, to see that it is fraught with problems

You also don't have to assume that all racism, sexism etc leads to death camps. Yes, fascism saw a lot of people turn a blind eye to negative opinions of Jews and others. That was the start. But the fascists were able to go further and further into action against the groups they despised, because they shut down all opposition. Totalitarian regimes always shut down speech because it is 'dangerous' or 'harmful' and that limits our ability to oppose them. So free speech goes alongside anti-racism as a key weapon against discriminatory action. Of course, if you allow free speech you have to allow all kinds of speech, including speech you disagree with, don't like or find 'hateful'. But if it is all out in the open, we can see it and challenge it.

If you outlaw certain types of speech, who decides what is outlawed and what isn't? The line in law at the moment is a good one I think: say what you like, but don't incite violence. Surely if we hold to this line we have the best of both worlds: the benefits of free speech, in which all ideas can be freely discussed and challenged; and a clear red line beyond which we cannot cross, to prevent the slippage from speech to action seen so many times in history.

Adamante · 22/01/2025 14:31

Ghruch · 22/01/2025 14:24

The trouble is that we are facing a new type of totalitarianism now. If someone finds speech 'hateful', they have the right to stop it. On the face of it, it might seem impossible to find fault with that, but you only have to try a thought experiment on a type of speech that some people find 'hateful' and others don't, to see that it is fraught with problems

You also don't have to assume that all racism, sexism etc leads to death camps. Yes, fascism saw a lot of people turn a blind eye to negative opinions of Jews and others. That was the start. But the fascists were able to go further and further into action against the groups they despised, because they shut down all opposition. Totalitarian regimes always shut down speech because it is 'dangerous' or 'harmful' and that limits our ability to oppose them. So free speech goes alongside anti-racism as a key weapon against discriminatory action. Of course, if you allow free speech you have to allow all kinds of speech, including speech you disagree with, don't like or find 'hateful'. But if it is all out in the open, we can see it and challenge it.

If you outlaw certain types of speech, who decides what is outlawed and what isn't? The line in law at the moment is a good one I think: say what you like, but don't incite violence. Surely if we hold to this line we have the best of both worlds: the benefits of free speech, in which all ideas can be freely discussed and challenged; and a clear red line beyond which we cannot cross, to prevent the slippage from speech to action seen so many times in history.

Show quote history

This is an excellent post.

Feelingathomenow · 22/01/2025 15:25

Ghruch · 22/01/2025 14:24

The trouble is that we are facing a new type of totalitarianism now. If someone finds speech 'hateful', they have the right to stop it. On the face of it, it might seem impossible to find fault with that, but you only have to try a thought experiment on a type of speech that some people find 'hateful' and others don't, to see that it is fraught with problems

You also don't have to assume that all racism, sexism etc leads to death camps. Yes, fascism saw a lot of people turn a blind eye to negative opinions of Jews and others. That was the start. But the fascists were able to go further and further into action against the groups they despised, because they shut down all opposition. Totalitarian regimes always shut down speech because it is 'dangerous' or 'harmful' and that limits our ability to oppose them. So free speech goes alongside anti-racism as a key weapon against discriminatory action. Of course, if you allow free speech you have to allow all kinds of speech, including speech you disagree with, don't like or find 'hateful'. But if it is all out in the open, we can see it and challenge it.

If you outlaw certain types of speech, who decides what is outlawed and what isn't? The line in law at the moment is a good one I think: say what you like, but don't incite violence. Surely if we hold to this line we have the best of both worlds: the benefits of free speech, in which all ideas can be freely discussed and challenged; and a clear red line beyond which we cannot cross, to prevent the slippage from speech to action seen so many times in history.

Show quote history

Brilliant post