The identity of my cook didn't have anything to do with my hypotheticals. They were just vehicles for demonstrating my reasoning. Maybe you didn't find my alternative context amusing, or maybe it was the points I was making you didn't like, or both. I acknowledge that you were not persuaded, since you seem to continue to put a higher emphasis on what someone says or thinks, compared to what is revealed by what they do. In my opinion, it's easy to trust people to do their job well when they have a track record of doing exactly that, no matter what they may have to say. I acknowledge that you are entitled to a different opinion.
I think I said pretty clearly that I don't see the rational connection between views on immigration/cultural integration and the work of a parking enforcement officer. I also told another poster that I don't think there's any way of proving whether his views are "warped" or not. They are just opinions as to what makes for a better society. Since we live in a democracy, those opinions will only govern immigration policy if enough people hold the same views.
It was his job performance I suggested be reviewed, not his social media posts. I don't care about his social media posts. I do care about his job performance as a civil servant with a certain measure of authority.
Knowing that others in positions of power may have an authoritarian and intellectually intolerant view of the world, and knowing that reason certainly does not always win out, especially when politics are involved, are good reasons to fear repercussions for actions or statements that really ought to be left to be. I don't think that protecting yourself against those with power over you, who aren't necessarily governed by reason, is tacit admission of anything, except perhaps your low expectations of others.
