31–40 of 43 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The issue is that consequence-free speech quickly bumps up against the paradox of tolerance. I think there can be a debate around where the cutoff line for what's acceptable is but no line at all most likely won't work.
As a general matter, the fact that society may find speech offensive is not a sufficient reason for suppressing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
did the author shot gun the manifesto or just send it to a few colleagues? How did it spread so far? The difference is that one is a few people discussing a thought bubble (good for everyone) the other is inappropriate use of company facilities (not good for everyone or the company). the first one is not in itself sack-able... but the other may very well be a sack-able offence.
The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. They swarmed him. It was like dropping a steak in a shark tank.
sharing idea's on a small scale is good for everyone, sharing controversial or reprehensible is inadvisable but forgivable.
Those that went public with it, or spread it in outrage need a damned good talking to at least.
but really, I'd say the guy has learned a lot.... it may even make him a better person, isn't that everyone's desire?
There's an interesting article on the front page that firing this guy might be grounds for a lawsuit in and of itself. I don't think this guy should be fired. Google should make him an example of their willingness to listen, have thoughtful introspection, and consider all points of view. I truly hope this person is not fired. Free speech seems to only work when you're the majority.
>Free speech seems to only work when you're the majority. Also helps when you're not at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>Free speech seems to only work when you're the majority. Also helps when you're not at work.
Since when? The github transgender controversy a few years ago was about posts one of the contributors made in a different forum. Brendan Eich was pushed out because of his personal views. If this person posted it on his facebook page the result would likely be the same.
If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.
Also, wasn't Eich CEO? Different standard there.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
did the author shot gun the manifesto or just send it to a few colleagues? How did it spread so far? The difference is that one is a few people discussing a thought bubble (good for everyone) the other is inappropriate use of company facilities (not good for everyone or the company). the first one is not in itself sack-able... but the other may very well be a sack-able offence.
The author was trapped. He shared the document to the "skeptics" internal group asking for feedback. He didn't realize that the skeptics group had been infected by SJWs for years. They swarmed him. It was like dropping a steak in a shark tank.
Sounds like a company sponsored honey pot, even more ammo for an unfair dismissal lawsuit.
The saddest part about this spectacle is that the author and his detractors are literally talking past one another. The author did not say that his female colleagues can't do tech. He's saying that the pool of talent in general population might not be the same size across genders. A quick glance at CS graduation statistics shows that is basically true today. This is the same point that led in part to Larry Summers lo…
The saddest part about this spectacle is that the author and his detractors are literally talking past one another. The author did not say that his female colleagues can't do tech. He's saying that the pool of talent in general population might not be the same size across genders. A quick glance at CS graduation statistics shows that is basically true today. This is the same point that led in part to Larry Summers lo…
I take it you haven't read the manifesto. Here you go: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo... Then read about the law of averages: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_averages
While I can understand Google deciding to fire the author, he's embarrassed the shit out of his company in a very public way, I think it would be sad if they do. The dude has some serious misconceptions about the world and people, but I think his heart is in the right place. He's working from some bad assumptions and has come to bad conclusions as a result. It's classic Garbage-In-Garbage-Out. I'd really like to see…
Is that what he said? What are his bad assumptions?
I've noticed some people on Twitter, including Susan Fowler and Kara Swisher, saying free speech is only a protection against government intrusion and doesn't apply in the corporate sector. That seems to be mirrored in this article. The only thing I'd say is that those people should think carefully. Denouncing and shrinking rights such as free speech and normalising their role as negative rights when it is convenient…
The issue is that consequence-free speech quickly bumps up against the paradox of tolerance. I think there can be a debate around where the cutoff line for what's acceptable is but no line at all most likely won't work.