From what I read (drawn into it as I was) there were fairly clear cases of intentional obfuscation. Little white lies to avoid any initial questions getting in the way.
Let them who is without sin cast the first stone, but even if the father was (at that time) innocent before being proved guilty, it seems that it was anticipated (and proven) that the more civil judgement of "do we want to risk our organisation's reputation by unlearning what we now have learnt?" was going to be a big, fat No Thanks, and now with the added probability of dishonesty to obscure this.
The crimes of the father should not be used to prevent 'employment' by Reddit, of course, and I don't know if the partner's Twitter-waffle (if not hacked) should be a personal fault. But the subsequent concerns laid at the feet of the individual concerned for possible informed enabling are a matter that cannot be left unaddressed. The action or inaction that follows this addressing may inevitably lead to judgement as to the rightfulness, and this has erupted into the subbredits-revolution (apparently, I don't go to reddit enough, or wide enough, to know what may have happened before, and only gone to see the Rukwotsit page, last night, to see what fuss was actually being made here).
Would I hire them? Not an issue, I must say, I'm neither looking nor capable of doing so. But, theoretically if I were, I would no doubt theoretically have other candidates who may come with apparently far less doubtful backgrounds (assuming there were no further attempts to obscure).
At one point when I was applying for many jobs, one of the few times I was able to find out why my CV had not progressed me onto any list (shorter than the "very very long one before we even do any shuffling and cutting" one) turned out to be a disagreement over whether I had made a typo somewhere in a list of past experience. (Don't know if that's better or worse than being simultaneously rejected for having too much and too little detail, depending on who you asked - and also deigned to answer.) I would support organisations' right to make reasonable summary decisions of whatever kind, especially where they do not want for alternate (and 'alternative') applicants. And I don't see a problem with reasonable objections by those concerned as to how that organisation did or did not themselves reasonably object.
Oh, and an objection against a Trans person isn't necessarily transphobic, like objections to Meghan (née Markle, ex-RH) aren't necessarily racist[1]/anti-US/classist/whatever. Sometimes it's a personal objection (justified or otherwise), even if it can also be used by some as a 'wedge' issue to get past some more inexcusable opinion. You can't stop the underlying -isms by refusing to accept the possibility of the personal, though, or any other form of legitimatable rejection.
[1] If the media (both pro- and anti-, for their own reasons) weren't so often telling me that she was black, I wouldn't even have known she was!
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4222688 times)