Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

drupalconfessions.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 341 posts

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#321

Post by jdietrich »

Pxtl wrote: post #129
maxlybbert wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Searching out which people have chosen a philosophy as an adult is how witch hunts start and are justified. I've heard complaints about McCarthyism and the Red Scare over the years, and I thought the moral was "witch hunts are bad." However, it looks clear…

Leftist beliefs aren't "half the population is my lesser ". Seriously, would you make excuses like this for a pro-ISIS muslim? A white nationalist? A violent anarchist? An antisemitic holocaust denier? Believing that one person is less human than the other by the attributes of their birth is not a philosophical discussion like capitalism vs communism. If witches are actually doing damage , then by all means hunt them…

>If witches are actually doing damage, then by all means hunt them.

That's the business of the criminal justice system. If someone is committing criminal acts, then they need to be caught and prosecuted. If they merely hold objectionable views, then it's not my job to try them in the court of public opinion.

If I'm free to persecute people whose beliefs I disagree with, then what right have I to complain if someone starts persecuting me for my beliefs? Witch-hunting and thought-policing is a very slippery slope.

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#322

Post by coldpie »

tzs wrote: post #298
coldpie wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's a shame that all people cannot be like this, because there are others who take a hard line stance against certain private matter that someone else may hold. In Eich's case, it wasn't a private matter. He used his money and influence to attempt to enforce his religious views on people who do not subscribe to his religion. When you are involving the government in public enforcement of your personal views, they a…

Has he actually said he did it because of religious views? I've come across people who believed that the state should not be involved in marriage. They viewed extending marriage to gay couples as just making a bad situation worse, by getting the state involved in even more relationships.

> Has he actually said he did it because of religious views?

Yes, he has.

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#323

Post by Frondo »

ng12 wrote: post #306
Frondo wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure it's possible to have certain views and maintain a respectful workplace environment, full stop. To make an extreme hypothetical: You have a white supremacist coworker and a black coworker. The white supremacist always treats your black coworker with respect, kindness, and compassion. She also openly admits that, nothing personal, but she believes black folks are inferior and should be expelled/exterminat…

Why is she openly admitting it? If she brings it to work that's the problem.

What if she were out marching with a white power rally on the weekend, and the black coworker happened to see her there?

What's that going to be like on the following Monday? If asked, in this hypothetical, is she supposed to lie?

"So, Jean, I saw you at a white power rally...you were holding an effigy of a hanged black person...what's that about?"

Or, contrive any situation in which her views on her black colleague (i.e. that, although she treats him with kindness and respect, she considers him subhuman and would like to exile/exterminate him and everyone who looks like him) were brought into the workplace.

If the white supremacist coworker doesn't bring up her white supremacist views at work, ever, and treats her black colleague with kindness and respect, at work, but outside the office does not conceal her views, and when asked directly does not lie about them ("Yes, Jim, I'd kill every black person if I could"), how do you resolve the tension that's going to arise from that?

Tell the black colleague, "Jim, don't ask Jean about her white supremacy."? How's Jim supposed to feel about working with her, knowing what he knows about Jean?

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#324

Post by ng12 »

Frondo wrote: post #323
ng12 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is she openly admitting it? If she brings it to work that's the problem.

What if she were out marching with a white power rally on the weekend, and the black coworker happened to see her there? What's that going to be like on the following Monday? If asked, in this hypothetical, is she supposed to lie? "So, Jean, I saw you at a white power rally...you were holding an effigy of a hanged black person...what's that about?" Or, contrive any situation in which her views on her black colleague…

I think the line is "undue hardship". There's a legal precedent that the accusation of accommodation of religious beliefs causing undue hardship "generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work" [1] -- I'd argue the same goes for any personal belief system. In this scenario Jean is an asshole but I don't think it causes Jim undue hardship if she never discusses it at work. Jim has no legal right to like his coworkers, nor does Jean have to be liked. However, if she hung a Nazi flag by her desk it would be a different story.

1. https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/foia/letters/2009/religionhandshak...

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#325

Post by Frondo »

ng12 wrote: post #324
Frondo wrote: post #323

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if she were out marching with a white power rally on the weekend, and the black coworker happened to see her there? What's that going to be like on the following Monday? If asked, in this hypothetical, is she supposed to lie? "So, Jean, I saw you at a white power rally...you were holding an effigy of a hanged black person...what's that about?" Or, contrive any situation in which her views on her black colleague…

I think the line is "undue hardship". There's a legal precedent that the accusation of accommodation of religious beliefs causing undue hardship "generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work" [1] -- I'd argue the same goes for any personal belief system. In this scenario Jean is an asshole but I don't think it causes Jim undue hards…

I would like to find out what people who have been traditionally been the target of white supremacy groups would say to your reply. I would like to know if they would consider it acceptable, given the history and context of white supremacy and the violence toward minorities that it's led to.

I wonder if they would be OK with, "well, Jean marches with a group calling for your extermination, and you know, throughout history, there's been a lot of violence from them to people who look like you, but since she doesn't bring it up at work, deal with it."

I think I'll ask around with my POC friends, in that ham-fisted way white folks always end up asking about these things ("So, I don't want you to speak for all people of color, but ... I'm hashing something out on the internet with some stranger who's probably also a hetero white guy, and ...").

My hunch is, knowing your coworker wishes for the extermination of your people would be considered hostile and unacceptable, especially by those people historically targeted by white supremacist violence, even if she's nice to your face. Like, I imagine you'd have the same tension with a card-carrying nazi and a Jewish colleague who lost family in the holocaust.

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#326

Post by ng12 »

Frondo wrote: post #325
ng12 wrote: post #324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the line is "undue hardship". There's a legal precedent that the accusation of accommodation of religious beliefs causing undue hardship "generally requires evidence that the accommodation would actually infringe on the rights of co-workers or cause disruption of work" [1] -- I'd argue the same goes for any personal belief system. In this scenario Jean is an asshole but I don't think it causes Jim undue hards…

I would like to find out what people who have been traditionally been the target of white supremacy groups would say to your reply. I would like to know if they would consider it acceptable, given the history and context of white supremacy and the violence toward minorities that it's led to. I wonder if they would be OK with, "well, Jean marches with a group calling for your extermination, and you know, throughout hi…

I like your assumption that I only have this opinion become I'm insulated from it. What if I were a homosexual who's had conservative Christian and conservative Muslim coworkers? It's not a hostile environment as long as each group treats the other with respect.

To be clear: I think card carrying Nazis are abhorrent and would rather not interact with them. I also thinking banning them from an apolitical volunteer group where they do not volunteer their views is wrong.

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#327

Post by smsm42 »

Pxtl wrote: post #129
maxlybbert wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Searching out which people have chosen a philosophy as an adult is how witch hunts start and are justified. I've heard complaints about McCarthyism and the Red Scare over the years, and I thought the moral was "witch hunts are bad." However, it looks clear…

Leftist beliefs aren't "half the population is my lesser ". Seriously, would you make excuses like this for a pro-ISIS muslim? A white nationalist? A violent anarchist? An antisemitic holocaust denier? Believing that one person is less human than the other by the attributes of their birth is not a philosophical discussion like capitalism vs communism. If witches are actually doing damage , then by all means hunt them…

> Leftist beliefs aren't "half the population is my lesser".

One could be very easily misled into thinking so with comments like "basket of deplorables". And it's not the only or the worst that leftists said about their opponents. One could argue about if it's exactly "half of the population" or merely 37%, but the idea of un-acceptance and plain old hate is definitely there. And occasionally spills out into violence, as we have seen lately.

> Believing that one person is less human than the other by the attributes of their birth is not a philosophical discussion like capitalism vs communism.

Communists believe bourgeoise are less human, at least if you look how they treated them whereever they got to win. Including kids, of course. In fact, in the USSR having ancestors of a wrong class (not "worker class") was a permanent stain on one's CV for a quite long time. Not sure about other communist/socialist countries but don't think they were more moderate.

> If witches are actually doing damage, then by all means hunt them.

Except beliefs don't do damage. Actions do. And in this case literally nobody was able to name any harmful action that ever happened. Unless "I got my feelings hurt knowing you think wrongthoughts" is counted as harm, which it is not.

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#328

Post by dragonwriter »

smsm42 wrote: post #327
Pxtl wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Leftist beliefs aren't "half the population is my lesser ". Seriously, would you make excuses like this for a pro-ISIS muslim? A white nationalist? A violent anarchist? An antisemitic holocaust denier? Believing that one person is less human than the other by the attributes of their birth is not a philosophical discussion like capitalism vs communism. If witches are actually doing damage , then by all means hunt them…

> Leftist beliefs aren't "half the population is my lesser". One could be very easily misled into thinking so with comments like "basket of deplorables". And it's not the only or the worst that leftists said about their opponents. One could argue about if it's exactly "half of the population" or merely 37%, but the idea of un-acceptance and plain old hate is definitely there. And occasionally spills out into violence…

> One could be very easily misled into thinking so with comments like "basket of deplorables".

Even if you could, that was a comment from a center-right neoliberal about the supporters of a far right authoritarian, and didn't involve leftists in any capacity.

> Communists believe bourgeoise are less human, at least if you look how they treated them whereever they got to win.

The bourgeoisie are a narrow elite, particularly so (compared to, e.g., the developed West and economies which met the criteria for moving on from capitalism to socialism in the Marxist model of Communism) in places where Leninist vanguardism established regimes, not half of the population. And, in any case, Leninist vanguardism isn't representative of leftism, in much the same way Dominionism isn't representative of Christianity. (Or, for that matter, the same way that Leninist vanguardism isn't representative of atheism.)

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#329

Post by Bartweiss »

giaour wrote: post #236
Pxtl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where professionalism is important. Firmly separating your personal life and your professional life. That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married…

> That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. That seems like a distinction without a difference. If someone converted to a religion as an adult, would you feel justified in using their religious beliefs to eject them from an open source project?

All other commentary aside, I find the "imparted as a child" distinction creepy and infantilizing. It sounds like "I know you think you believe this, but you were raised that way so your views don't count as real opinions!" My gut reaction is something like "screw you, hold me accountable for all my beliefs!"

Even more obviously, childhood beliefs affect us in lots of different ways. If someone becomes a Satanist because they were raised with oppressive Christianity, is that any less "imparted as a child" than sticking with their Christian faith?

This is a bizarre distinction that seems like a way to exempt popular beliefs from being held accountable for their content.

Re: Drupal Confessions – An Open Letter

#330

Post by Pxtl »

hhandoko wrote: post #313
Pxtl wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is where professionalism is important. Firmly separating your personal life and your professional life. That said, there's a huge gap between a religion a person is imparted with as a child, and philosophy they chose as an adult and have jumped into with both feet. Many people come from backgrounds with bigoted ideas like that, but they don't colour their daily lives with it because they're not actively married…

> Marvel Comics recently fired an illustrator for hiding Islamist, anti-Semitic and anti-Christian references in his art. His ideas were "normal" in his country - should that have been ignored? Reprimanded as long as he kept his politics out of his art? Indonesian here, I'm not sure to what you attribute it to a normal view by Indonesians?

Sorry, not "normal" but "common" as in "not rare". 100,000 people out protesting Ahok is a pretty firm sign that the artist is part of a large movement, even if his viewpoint is in the minority.
Post reply on HN