Non-fiction Audiobook sample
Vocal Characteristics
Language
EnglishVoice Age
Middle Aged (35-54)Accents
Australian British (General)Transcript
Note: Transcripts are generated using speech recognition software and may contain errors.
freedom to hate. You've been working with a guy named Joe for almost a year now. He's a good worker, cheerful with a sense of humour. You've gone to lunch with him here and there. You're not quite friends. Still more acquaintances. But one day you're invited to a cookout at his house. At the house, everyone is relaxed and having a good time. When Joe starts ranting about another rice, he talks about how they're all messed up. Nothing good comes from them and how they need major help. You speak up and say It's not like that. What about our coworkers? Sarah? She's smart and does great work. Don't judge the whole race. He brushes it off and says, Yeah, there are always exceptions to the rule. For a second, you think about responding again, but decide not to and instead make your last rounds and lave drawing the line. Encountering someone who not only holds an opinion that is in conflict with our own, but one that we believe is an immoral stands can be difficult. Some may hold strong opinions and feel the need to firmly engage, while others may feel it's not their place and don't say anything firmly engaging can quickly turn into strong emotions and fights while passively not saying anything adds no value at best. Even after Joe displayed a prejudiced or racist way of thinking, many would continue to be cordial with him. Some may even still be friends, while others would steer clear and stop associating altogether. The stronger out stands, the more we might see that anyone else who is still being cordial is also questionable. Why would they be cordial if they were morally against his beliefs? Now imagine your Joe's boss and in charge of hiring, firing raises and promotions. It's promotion time, and Joe hasn't displayed any of that negative behaviour at work and is one of the best workers. Would you promote Joe? Would you give Joe a raise? Would you let Joe be in a lead role over Sarah, who is off the race? He doesn't think highly off. What if Joe Social Media Page has negative commentary, videos and posts about Sarah's race? Ignorance is bliss. If Joe would have stayed quiet about his beliefs, there would be no questions. We'd promote him and give him a raise for being one of the best workers. We would never know how those implicit biases could be impacting his judgement more than the rest of us. Normally, when we're talking about personal beliefs, we'd say it doesn't matter and that they're entitled to their own opinion. However, if that opinion seems to be immoral or skewed to a strong enough extent, it becomes harder to not let it impact our judgement. As a result, large organisations generally try to avoid decorating in office with controversial topics and beliefs. Doing so keeps the work environment neutral such that it doesn't skew judgement and work tasks in general and organisation can have its own rules and anyone is free to affiliate or leave the organisation platform for immorality. It makes sense that without a platform to be heard or express thoughts, there's no real chance off disagreements, arguments or any other discrimination. Unfortunately, even if we recognise that echo chambers are bad and working to understand his ideal when it comes to immoral issues, it just doesn't feel right to give immorality a platform or listen to it at all. One thing to help bring context is to acknowledge our own imperfections. We are only human and don't always adhere perfectly to right and wrong. We are always making mistakes. We sometimes have thoughts that pull us in a direction where we don't want to go knowing that we make mistakes. Is there ever a point where we should discriminate based on someone's immoral thoughts or beliefs alone?