Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture • Hacker News Board

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

#441

Post by carterage » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:32 AM UTC

leereeves wrote: post #368

arkades wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In NY, in the Brownsville, BK area, 93 of every 100 residents was stopped by the NYPD under its stop and frisk policy in 2009. In 2011, the NYPD has more black male stop-and-frisks than there are black males living in NYC. That’s not a perception of disproportionate attention from the police, that’s an overbearing presence one must objectively acknowledge in ones life. When -those- are your daily experiences with the…

Is it relevant that Brownsville is one of Brooklyn's most dangerous neighborhoods?

Brownsville has a reputation, yes. But Brownsville is an engineered pocket of Brooklyn, for sure.

The reason Brownsville exists in this way, is because other parts of the city have created it the serve thusly. Spend enough time in NYC, and you gain an affinity for the equillibrium that fixtures on its map have acquired, in order to persist for decades and generations.

Brownsville is a landlocked pocket of subway-accessible pavement, about an hour from Manhattan.

Inside the footprint of the city limts, things exist as a matter of human will. The more powerful forces at the top tend to have stronger influnce over the sequence of events, than those at the bottom.

What was going on with the walled city of kowloon? Was it there because people aspired to that, and it was a reflection of their intent?

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

#442

Post by mce1123 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:32 AM UTC

This is why it's fruitless to argue with Marxists--they subjugate truth to layers of shifting context.

Non-Marxist: Is true? Marxist: No. was/is/will be used against my political tribe, therefore it is false. Non-Marxist: Well, can it just be "technically" true in this narrow case if we ignore the greater context? Marxist: I don't understand what you're talking about. Non-Marxist: Can anything be both true and politically inconvenient? Marxist: What a stupid question. Of course not!

It's a wonder how so many of these people get into tech. How can you study science if your ideology invalidates Newtonian mechanics because it was invented to help England bombard natives?

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

#443

Post by taysic » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:34 AM UTC

jakebasile wrote: post #425

taysic wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not really banning eating such meals - they simply don't want to cover their costs. I don't really see the issue personally. There are many things companies don't want to cover which they get to decide on.

Say I work for WeWork and travel for work. I have a limited palate and like almost nothing that could be considered vegetarian and even less that would be vegan. I am now required to pay out of pocket for all my meals, when normally I could choose to eat at home, which is not possible thanks to my job requiring me to travel. Depending on the area I'm travelling to this could be a large expense that under normal condi…

Okay, but that didn't convince me much personally. I think its absolutely in the company's liberty to cover the costs of the things they want to cover - as is the case with all benefits (other than gov mandated ones). They are just perks after all.

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

#444

Post by charlesism » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:35 AM UTC

mmirate wrote: post #390

charlesism wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Easily the majority of the US population > would hold at least one of those views. If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical. I won't insult you by bringing up obvious examples from American history. If you want to calibrate your moral compass, the right way to do it isn't always a show of hands.

> If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical. Congratulations, you've discovered why democracy is stupid.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic? Without additional protections, such as a bill of rights, "democracy" is stupid. But most us live in "liberal democracies", which are as good as it gets.

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

#445

Post by amanaplanacanal » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:35 AM UTC

Apocryphon wrote: post #77

crazygringo wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because conservatives are anti-union and anti-NLRB. Edit: why the heck am I being downvoted? I'm literally just explaining what I assumed the GP was referring to.

Only Nixon could go to China. Sometimes in America you see the strangest political bedfellows.

Yes. Another example is Clinton and welfare reform. Politics is weird that way.

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

#446

Post by wilsonnb3 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:36 AM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #113

Analemma_ wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Name me a couple of these views which haven't changed, and qualified you as left-leaning as a teenager but alt-right today.

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.

Neither of those makes you alt right.

You'll find absolute free speech advocates on both the left and the right. It's more of a libertarian/authoritarian issue than a left/right issue.

Only extremists on the left would disagree that sex differences are partially/fully biological (depending on how you're defining biological and sex).

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

#447

Post by kjeetgill » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:36 AM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #227

This has become a big problem. Look at WeWork. That company banned employees from expensing meals that happened to have non-fish meat. I can't think of something more personal than what people choose to eat. They are imposing their beliefs about diet on employees. It's full blown coercion. Some companies are taking the activism a bit too far.

Huh, I hadn't heard about that. Did they face any significant backlash legal or otherwise? I suppose non-pescatarians aren't a protected class so there's no legal argument.

I like this example because it's fairly odd/unique enough to be jarring. I don't think companies need to act compleatly apolically, but it is a fine line to walk.

I find it hard to really generalize my own feelings on the issue without simply choosing my own politics.

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

#448

Post by stale2002 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:42 AM UTC

nepeckman wrote: post #412

philwelch wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 co…

While I do agree with your stated premise, I disagree with the notion that agreeing with the premise forces me to choose between McCarthy and Stalin. My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. It's my impression that people advocating socialist policies (or any policy not strictly capitalist) were also targeted. I feel I can object to this, while also objecting to…

> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well.

Indeed. Which has a lot a parallels to the current political witch hunts going on today, regarding right wing views.

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

#449

Post by leereeves » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:42 AM UTC

gmadsen wrote: post #136

tptacek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why? We're all generally well-paid (even with respect to the value we create). But this whole message board is practically dedicated to the ways in which our industry pisses us off, from confiscatory IP clauses to open offices to death march projects. Who's to say labor can't organize simply for a better shop to work in? That's not unprecedented.

for one, American right wing conservatism is strongly anti-union and anything that diminishes the employers agility to conduct business as they see fit, so the idea of a bunch of well paid conservatives banding together to collectively argue against their employers is very ironic.

But is conservatism against regulating monopolies?

Facebook seems to be a natural monopoly. People only want one social network, and they want everyone they know to be on it. If it's a natural monopoly it should be regulated and, like other utilities, required to provide service to everyone.

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

#450

Post by jakebasile » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:43 AM UTC

taysic wrote: post #443

jakebasile wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I work for WeWork and travel for work. I have a limited palate and like almost nothing that could be considered vegetarian and even less that would be vegan. I am now required to pay out of pocket for all my meals, when normally I could choose to eat at home, which is not possible thanks to my job requiring me to travel. Depending on the area I'm travelling to this could be a large expense that under normal condi…

Okay, but that didn't convince me much personally. I think its absolutely in the company's liberty to cover the costs of the things they want to cover - as is the case with all benefits (other than gov mandated ones). They are just perks after all.

That's not at issue. It's of course their right. It's also my right to say it's a mean spirited and heavy handed overreach into employees personal lives.