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

Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 728 posts

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#331

Post by int_19h »

jmeyer2k wrote: post #202
kronin wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"tolerance" swings both ways. Unless you choose to be intolerant. The majority of people who spout tolerance and acceptance at me are the least tolerant and acceptant of other beliefs.

That's an interesting point, however I disagree it's tolerance of one group that makes someone intolerant of another group. In other words, I don't think being tolerant of black people means I must be intolerant of white people. Karl Popper wrote about this idea called the paradox of tolerance [0] asking if you should be tolerant of intolerance. [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

Popper was wrong - or, perhaps, not specific enough. The paradox only arises when you tolerate intolerant actions. But it does not arise at all if you tolerate intolerant opinions - which is the relevant part in this particular case.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#332

Post by eli_gottlieb »

aluren wrote: post #246
sampo wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm European. Yes, we think abortion, gun control, no death penalty and public healthcare are normal things. But European companies, or European work colleagues, don't think that (conservative) Americans are unhireable, or that they should be fired just because they're Americans and hold American political views.

That's a good point. I believe it's due to the fact that American-style conservative views are so fringe in Europe that no one takes them as a threat no matter outlandish they are. But in many European companies, signaling yourself as a supporter of the local far-right party (whether it be the AfD or the FN or the SD or whatever) can be grounds for blacklisting and ostracization. Still, the question remains: does tha…

I think that outlawing hate groups and proscribing their speech is an appropriate function of the state. It's an instrinsically public, political function. That's why it shouldn't be done by company management: it rightfully falls to a democratic institution that's accountable to the whole of the public.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#333

Post by falcolas »

A lot of hassle could be spared if we all followed one simple rule while at work:

"In polite company, it’s not proper to talk about sex, religion, or politics"

No matter what you have to say on those topics, you'll step on someone's toes. There's really no good reason to talk about it at work unless you're in a brothel, church, or a capital building.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#334

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

chrisco255 wrote: post #242
chrisco255 wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree with this "professional self" thing. I think you should bring your whole self to work...but sure, as with everything that should come in moderation. We all go to work to do a job, after all. But maybe the core problem is that we can't just agree to disagree, on some things. We have gotten to the point, as a society, that if you are right of center (in some circles), you're batshit alt-right crazy. And t…

The downvote button is not a disagree button.

It's not that people disagree with you; it's just that your ideas aren't adding much to the conversation. You've got piles of misinformation, no sources, that beautiful demand for civility in the face of categorically uncivil views, and then the wonderful demand for "tolerance". Tolerance has limits and you can't allow tolerance of ideas that exist in mortal opposition. IE there is no room for white supremacists in a multicultural world. That's why you've been downvoted. Your dog whistles are too obvious for even this forum.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#335

Post by ams6110 »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #299
xexers wrote: post #269

[Deleted]

Do you realize what you're saying here? "We abused that guy for years and he never complained or demanded better. Why can't we all be more like that?"

I didn't read the comment that way. I read it as life sucks for a lot of people at times. Some dwell on it and never get past it. Others find a way to move forward, to make their own lives better instead of demanding that someone else do it.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#336

Post by coliveira »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #299
xexers wrote: post #269

[Deleted]

Do you realize what you're saying here? "We abused that guy for years and he never complained or demanded better. Why can't we all be more like that?"

This is the whole mindset of people who want to maintain the status quo. "Just keep your mouth shut" is a mantra that only helps to maintain the oppression system.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#337

Post by charmides »

chrisco255 wrote: post #284
charmides wrote: post #250

When intelligent animals pay their lives for their presence on your plate, then your dinner choice is no longer an entirely personal decision.

Grazing animals and birds (as well as fish) have been feeding mankind for millions of years. We are omnivorous not by accident. Food is one of the most deeply cultural things that weaves society together and a company imposing its beliefs about diet on its individuals is the biggest form of elitism and one of the pettiest moves I have ever seen. A company has no business dictating this.

That's just an appeal to tradition, which was a popular argument back in the day to support slavery.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#338

Post by charmides »

sosense wrote: post #310
charmides wrote: post #250

When intelligent animals pay their lives for their presence on your plate, then your dinner choice is no longer an entirely personal decision.

Intelligent animals are killed farming produce, transferring things to market, and by the space you occupy, etc.

Doesn't mean we can't do our best to minimize suffering.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#339

Post by lordCarbonFiber »

threeseed wrote: post #177
_8j50 wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is disrespecting or demeaning a coworker for any reason allowed? If I disrespect you because your haircut is unfashionable,would that be ok? If the meeting was about supporting neo-nazis ,would that not be saying the conmpany tolerates neo-nazis and does not welcome those who hate neo-nazism? Yet, you should respect your neo-nazi coworker,even if you were not told so.

It’s not allowed. But people can accidentally disrespect LGBT people eg. calling trans people by the incorrect gender. And so to foster this workplace that you want as well it’s important for people to do things like tolerance training.

I love how people get all up in arms about tolerance training. It's literally "hey these people are people too and here are ways to act so you don't inadvertartly contribute to an environment that might make them less productive workers". If your coworker is upset because they feel like they have to hide their significant other, their gender, etc at work everyone loses. This is in contrast to politics; you can decide to break from the GOP you can't decide to be less trans. The morons that equate the two are almost beyond hope.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#340

Post by philwelch »

nepeckman wrote: post #225
philwelch wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not @AmericanChopper, but I can easily do that: 1. Believing in the near-absolute protection of free speech, even that which I find repugnant. 2. Acknowledging that sex differences are less than 100% culturally determined.

Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Not trying to assume your specific social location, but I know a lot of centrists who feel as you do, and they are white men. They might be repulsed by Nazi's who advocate ethnic cleansing, but I have to actually worry about what those people might do if they take power. I have a vested intere…

> Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when you're not the direct target of that "free speech."

Which is why I have a hell of a lot of respect for David Goldberger, the Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended the free speech of Neo-Nazis in 1977: https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html

The problem with your line of reasoning is that it forces you into what most on the left consider a very difficult fork.

PREMISE: Imposing both government sanctions and private sector no-platforming is a justifiable response to murderous ideologies.

(This is a decent, good-faith attempt to interpret the basic principle that seems to motivate people who say the things you say. In isolation, before you read the rest of my argument, I'm willing to bet that you would accept this premise as written. If you didn't, let me know.)

1. Communism is a murderous ideology. (See: all historical records of the 20th century.) Therefore, McCarthy did nothing wrong, and the members of the Hollywood Blacklist were merely the Alex Jones of their time.

2. Communism is not actually a murderous ideology. Therefore, Stalin did nothing wrong.

The fork is basically that, once you accept the premise that allows you to censor and no-platform Nazis, you either have to be a McCarthyist or a Stalinist, or at least an apologist for one of them.

Post reply on HN