Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, we changed 'dozens' to 'some' above.
I was fine with the title, as it reflects how the article frames it, but whatever.
The issue is that it was provoking people into posting dumb comments.
Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
501–510 of 728 posts
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#502Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you think a bigot stops being a bigot during a meeting, I honestly don’t know what to tell you.
Just because you find it difficult doesn't mean everyone does. Oh, I know you don't consider that bigotry... But I'm sure someone will. EDIT: It should probably be pointed out that the definition of bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.", pulled straight from Google. "If my coworker doesn’t believe ... then I don’t respect them as a coworker or a human being" (pulled from the…
If being intolerant of racism makes me a bigot then so be it.
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#503Earlier quoted context omitted.
One absolutely could. Black lives matter is a strict subset of all lives matter. Any life being covered by "black lives matter" is also covered by "all lives matter". In that sense, it cannot diminish "black lives matter" because "black lives matter" is wholly contained within "all lives matter". Furthermore, the portion of the population that has a direct interest in the movement succeeding is expanded by 5-7x. Seem…
Let me explain something you seem to be missing: subtext. Subtext is what is being said without being said. So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg. When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist. I know that might seem confusing, because the…
> So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg.
Incorrect, this isn't subtext, this is an idiom.
> When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist.
Complaints about "subtext" is often an excuse to construct and attack a straw man. Consider the phrase "listen and believe". Plenty of critics complained that this had the subtext of taking actions against the accused on testimony alone, and doing away with the principles of due process. Some users of the phrase may have attempted to advance those views, but "listen and believe" in and of itself is not about eroding due process - just that we should support people who believe they are victims. Similarly "All lives matter" is not a racist viewpoint - unless someone genuinely believes that the idea that any unjustly extinguished life is a tragedy is somehow racist.
"All lives matter" when specifically used to the exclusion of "black lives matter" (e.g. telling BLM activists to say "all lives matter" instead) may have a racist subtext. And as I have mentioned repeatedly elsewhere, I do not approve of these usages. That said, the blanket statement that "all lives matter" is racist is as wrong as saying "listen and believe" is about punishing people on baseless accusations.
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#504Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean any offense, but it has been my experience that people who can afford to "put politics aside", so to speak, are people from demographics who didn't have politics "happen" to them. When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you…
I can’t agree enough with your comment. The act of defining what and isn’t “political” - is itself a political act. It used to be unacceptably “political” in the majority of Anerican businesses to be against racial segregation. Now it’s the other way around. Whether you agree with that change or not, you can’t deny that the boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable discourse at work have changed over time. When you’r…
I would disagree, if you don't bring up any politics at all then you don't move the boundaries as the boundaries do not exist. There is no minimum level of acceptable politics to move any boundary. In that case, defining "political" is no longer a political act.
On the other hand you can also simply ban all tribal issues, ie the ones that cause coworkers to go at eachothers throats. This would be minorly political but the workplace atmosphere would improve greatly.
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#505Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just because you find it difficult doesn't mean everyone does. Oh, I know you don't consider that bigotry... But I'm sure someone will. EDIT: It should probably be pointed out that the definition of bigotry is "intolerance toward those who hold different opinions from oneself.", pulled straight from Google. "If my coworker doesn’t believe ... then I don’t respect them as a coworker or a human being" (pulled from the…
If being intolerant of racism makes me a bigot then so be it.
Is being intolerant of racism the same thing as being intolerant of racists, though? In my opinion, it's not - and you can be intolerant of racism while still working with a racist. If none of the actions they take at work are racist, then that's all that should matter. Would I be friends with them though? Not knowingly!
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#506Earlier 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.
Well, maybe. It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA, which was directly bankrolled from Moscow. Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”.
The main reason the various bans on political parties in Europe haven’t devolved into witch hunts is because the bans are in name only. The former communist states in Europe tended to ban the communist party, which immediately went back into business under another name, and no one cared. And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being fascists. At that point you’re just tabooing words and symbols. If you followed the same policy in the US, you wouldn’t actually end up censoring any KKK or neo-Nazis, because they would just rebrand as “pan-European nationalists” or something and pursue the same platform.
It’s most reasonable to set that bar, if it must be set, at direct and unambiguous incitement of violence, which would not include things like flying swastika flags. Communist Party USA was never banned, unlike Nazi, fascist, and communist parties across Europe, and I agree with that policy. The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke.
Any ideology that’s unpopular enough to ban isn’t popular enough to represent a real threat. The people banning it, though—they’re the ones to keep an eye on. Antifa literally march down the street wearing black shirts and beating up people they perceive as enemies, and they don’t see the irony in that. Sure, they should go to jail as soon as they lay hands on anyone, just like anyone else should, but I’m not going to begrudge their right to wear ridiculous black outfits and wave black-and-red flags around, and they’re a lot more likely to end up sending folks to death camps than those neo-Nazi clowns.
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#507Earlier quoted context omitted.
> the facts are that 1000 people (0.000003% of the population) are killed by police annually. 24% of those killed are black Per 2016 US Census [1]: > Black or African American = 40,241,818 (12.6%) Now compare with the number of people killed by the police in 2017 by race [2]. The math is left as an exercise for the reader... If you really believe that under-represented minorities are not at a major disadvantage in ou…
> Now compare with the number of people killed by the police in 2017 by race [2]. The math is left as an exercise for the reader... Your point is obviously that the percentage is higher for black people. But the percentage is higher for black people for a wide variety of causes of death, like exposure to toxic substances (due to living in high risk areas), which actually kill more people. So why is this one in partic…
> But the percentage is higher for black people for a wide variety of causes of death...
Let me quote the title of the link above: "Number of people SHOT TO DEATH BY THE POLICE in the United States in 2017-2018, as of June, by race".
Exposure to "toxic substances"? I don't think so.
Also, tech industry != "the internet".
If you're really interested in having a debate, go ahead and read Emily's book. Seriously.
While you're at it, "The Innovators" [1] is also a good read, and it'll be helpful to understand that the roots of our "tech industry" really started 100+ years ago, with a disproportional growth starting several decades before Larry and Sergey even got admitted to kindergarten...
The gender disparity we're seeing today is the consequence of several decades of systemic and widespread conscious and unconscious biases, that have shaped the perception of an entire generation.
Once you refine your understanding and start paying attention, you can see it everywhere. And unfortunately it'll take decades to fix.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/Innovators-Hackers-Geniuses-Created-R...
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#508Earlier 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.
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).
> Only extremists on the left would disagree that sex differences are partially/fully biological (depending on how you're defining biological and sex).
Unfortunately, there were enough “extremists” to get both Larry Summers and James Damore fired.
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#509Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't mean any offense, but it has been my experience that people who can afford to "put politics aside", so to speak, are people from demographics who didn't have politics "happen" to them. When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you…
I can’t agree enough with your comment. The act of defining what and isn’t “political” - is itself a political act. It used to be unacceptably “political” in the majority of Anerican businesses to be against racial segregation. Now it’s the other way around. Whether you agree with that change or not, you can’t deny that the boundaries of what is or isn’t acceptable discourse at work have changed over time. When you’r…
This line of reasoning is implicitely making the false equalence of "everyone who isn't with me is, by default, against me". Going down this route, you are forcing me to take a position on issues I don't nearly feel having sufficient amount of data, or nuance; nor motivated to acquire them, because giving a shit is a rapidly depletable resource, and I have my own life, and my own stuff to take care of.
Please do not take the position of neutrality away from me. Anyone who forces me using the reasoning above, is, by default, an enemy of mine, regardless of coincidence of wants.
Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture
#510Worked across very liberal and very conservative places in tech. Neither is pleasant. In my opinion, the American self-image and self-worth largely characterized by subscription to a political ideology is the problem. What bothers me is not dress codes,free meals,open offices,etc... But the very idea that a company would display or promote politics in the work place. Why are companies promoting "pride",donating to tr…
If politics were "playing basketball" or "solving crosswords," I would agree. The problem is that reality and politics share the same space.
Alex Jones is a liar and manipulator. He goes on the air and presents theories for which there is not even superficial evidence as news and established fact. I'm not trying to be political, those are just the facts as I see them.
Just because I show up at work doesn't mean I become some sort of mechanical money making machine. If I was a TV executive at a company running that show, I would want to the show canceled, no matter the ratings or revenue. I suppose many would say I was bringing "politics" into the work place, and maybe I would be, but what's the alternative?
And sorry if upsets someone's political viewpoint, but there is scientific consensus for global warming, and in America we should probably cut back our energy consumption a bit. So, if I advocate that dress codes be relaxed in the summer so the thermostat can go up a degree, I guess it's political, but I'm not advocating it to piss off conservative people. It's just how I see the world.
I think the internal memo linked in the report makes the ever valid point to argue and attack ideas, not people. But honestly, that issue seems to be pervasive in our culture, so it does not seem specific to workspace behavior.
I think most people are just fighting for the world they want to live in. Why should that only be to do that outside of work, when we spend half our waking time at work?