somethingle234

Come on. It IS socially mandatory.

People are harassed for not tipping. People look down on you for not tipping. Even, for bad service, we still have to tip.

> Many people follow supposedly "violent" religions peacefully alongside other faiths.

This is what I originally meant. I think you understand. We might use different words for the same thing here.

Christian people in the western world would reject many stories in the Bible. Even Pope seems to reject some ancient ideas from the Bible.

Or you can say I consider the old Christianity to be a different religion from the modern Christianity. Because the sets of beliefs differ.

But, in other parts of the world where society isn't as "developed", we just follow blindly what (most of) the book says. We reject very little. Since the book is often ancient, it becomes problematic.

At least, for me, it doesn't even need to be an action. For example, if a person believes that women are properties of men because the religion says so, I wouldn't want to accept that religion. (Let's say that person says it out loud)

Please note, by accepting, I mean "being okay that the person next to you practice this religion". In other words, you can live together in the same area.

Just to clarify: by accepting it, I mean "not practicing it, but be okay with the fact that the person next to you is practicing it."

My use of English isn't very good, I apologize.

Let me give a thought experiment.

Let's say: one religion believes that the person who leaves that religion should be killed

Should I be ok with the person with this religion? Should I do something about this?

I want to say there are good practices and bad practices. But our ideology is to accept all of them. That's not good.

I can understand your point.

My point is that "accepting all faiths" has gone too far.

> It's better to let people have the freedom to make their own choices.

But accepting the people's choices without examining the content is strange. Don't you think?

Would you accept anything that you don't understand?

I understand there must be some balance. And we might be biased to accepting a faith. But, at least, we should exercise some common sense before accepting it.

And I know. The problem becomes: whose common sense is right?

I apologize for the inaccuracy. But I hope my point of "blindly" accepting all faiths is understood.

I'm not defending this startup specifically. But, in general, I dislike this attitude because:

The first point is that it wastes everybody's time. This also applies when a recruiter letting us know the interview result. The recruiters love to make us feel like we are human. I actually feel the opposite.

When a recruiter wanted to let me know the interview result, they would send an email to schedule a call. Then, the call would have to happen in the next few days instead. This occurred during the time I was interviewing with 7 companies and trying to juggling deadlines and offers. Just fcking tell me the result.

Another point is that this kind of attitude doesn't account for "diversity" of preferences. I admit that different people would want prefer different things. But why do we default to the way that wastes the most time? Just send an email that I am fired and offer to schedule a time to talk. If I want to talk, I'll schedule the time.

Please don't see me as a "human resource". But, more importantly, please do NOT waste my time.