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

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

#531

Post by yellowapple » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:11 AM UTC

ikeyany wrote: post #466

yellowapple wrote: post #358

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not with that attitude you can't. Racists aren't (usually) racists for the fun of it. Racists are racists because they feel threatened by or lack sufficient exposure to / understanding of other races. If your goal is to cure racism, then making racists feel even more threatened is probably the least productive way of going about it. Instead, the trick is to befriend them. Show them that there's nothing to fear. These…

No, the "trick" is not simply to befriend them. That is an incredibly simplistic and naive way to interpret hate, and it shows you haven't had to deal with racism strongly impacting your life. Not all bigotry is based in innocent misunderstanding. Sometimes it's intentionally strongly held convictions of derision and superiority. The answer isn't to spew hate back at them, but it certainly isn't to make friends.

In my experience, the vast majority of my racist family members and other acquaintances are such specifically because of a lack of understanding of and positive exposure to individuals of other races. Even the "strongly held convictions of derision and superiority" are more often than not compensation for a sense of fear rather than genuine belief in superiority.

I never said it was innocent misunderstanding, but it is still misunderstanding nonetheless, and it is still possible to at least start to correct this misunderstanding by alleviating the fear underlying it, thus making it easier for a racist individual to expose oneself to those "inferior" races and realize that they're just fellow human beings and not scary job-stealing world-order-establishing criminal boogeymen.

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

#532

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:21 AM UTC

ibeckermayer wrote: post #515

aluren wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One definition of power that is sometimes given: "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." I'm pointing this out because I see no one else did, but that quote is from Kevin Alfred Strom, a neo-Nazi convicted for possession of child pornography ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom ) and he really meant to convey not-so-subtle antisemitic undertones with it. I'm…

What a total sequitur. The point of the quote isn't who said it, it's that it's true.

[deleted]

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

#533

Post by AmericanChopper » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:24 AM UTC

rsj_hn wrote: post #530

nepeckman wrote: post #225

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." 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…

Fun Fact: A lot of people, when discussing Free Speech, bring up Nazis and how some views should be banned. In fact, Weimar Germany, although much more liberal than the republic under Bismarck, cracked down on hate speech and jailed many Nazis, which only led to them getting a more sympathetic hearing and a broader audience: "Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all pr…

>at worst you are also creating a much wider audience of sympathetic ears, mostly drawn from a public who doesn't like to be told what to think.

I very firmly believe that if it we're for the chorus of media outlets and public voices pushing the idea that anybody who didn't like Hillary, or who did like Trump, were all racist, sexist, deplorable... That Trump probably wouldn't have been elected.

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

#534

Post by camel_Snake » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:24 AM UTC

ams6110 wrote: post #341

mcphage wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You would not like it one bit at the conservative places I worked at. So the commenter says that he looks forward to the next generation of developers not experiencing the hate that he has experienced. You say, he’d be unhappy at conservative places, presumably because he’d still experience that hate. So then why do you wonder why he pushes for politics in the workforce? His goal—hell, it should be all of our goal—…

I don't think the presumption is that he would still be experiencing the hate. But neither might his lifestyle be celebrated at work. And why should it be?

I don't think he's looking to be celebrated, just accepted and treated fairly.

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

#535

Post by camel_Snake » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:40 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…

If you are a picky eater and choosing between starving or paying for your own meal I think it's a safe bet which you would choose.

Try and flip your example around - say you were vegan and had to travel for work to a small town without any vegan options. Would you expect that your company would ship you food to fill the gap or would you just buy some groceries yourself and figure it out?

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

#536

Post by Bendingo » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:40 AM UTC

michaelmrose wrote: post #272

_8j50 wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Intolerance of anti-black people makes you intolerant,not tolerance of black people. That intolerance would be fine(I certainly don't tolerate anti-black people in my personal life) but I would want to make every effort to be professional and respectful towards a skinhead at work.

I would collaborate with my coworkers to get him fired. In the end after a few dozen unrelated complaints about random different things their supervisor would be thinking about getting rid of them.

I presume you would only complain about the workplace behaviour of this skinhead.

If your target skinhead kept all his skinhead behaviour out of the workplace, and only displayed respect and tolerance to his colleagues, would you still organise to get him fired?

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

#537

Post by Bendingo » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:44 AM UTC

int_19h wrote: post #331

jmeyer2k wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes I agree. This is a much better solution.

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

#538

Post by rsj_hn » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:46 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #533

rsj_hn wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fun Fact: A lot of people, when discussing Free Speech, bring up Nazis and how some views should be banned. In fact, Weimar Germany, although much more liberal than the republic under Bismarck, cracked down on hate speech and jailed many Nazis, which only led to them getting a more sympathetic hearing and a broader audience: "Leading Nazis, including Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch, and Julius Streicher, were all pr…

>at worst you are also creating a much wider audience of sympathetic ears, mostly drawn from a public who doesn't like to be told what to think. I very firmly believe that if it we're for the chorus of media outlets and public voices pushing the idea that anybody who didn't like Hillary, or who did like Trump, were all racist, sexist, deplorable... That Trump probably wouldn't have been elected.

I think that was part of it -- the "deplorables" line really hurt her. Hillary didn't have anywhere near the political talent that Bill had, where by "political talent" I mean being able to connect with people and bring you over to their side. I was stunned when she was nominated, because I couldn't imagine her winning a national election.

I think Al Gore had similar issues vis-a-vis Bush. He was just robotic, condescending in his stump speeches and debates. He was the exact wrong person to nominate to run against Bush, just in terms of his public persona.

The TV age really changed politics, and treating people with respect and not talking down to them matters. I think this rules out a lot of people who would otherwise make capable administrators, but that's how it is. And all of these people may be great one on one, but stick them in front of a camera, and man, they are cringe-worthy.

While I'm at it, Elizabeth Warren has the same problem. She comes off as a schoolmarm, constantly talking down to people. Please don't nominate her, Democrats, don't keep doing this. It would be nice to bring two party rule back to this country, so get someone who can win -- someone in the Bill Clinton, Barack Obama mold, who is able to be passionate about something while at the same time doesn't sound like they are scolding you for having the wrong views.

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

#539

Post by camel_Snake » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:51 AM UTC

justinzollars wrote: post #126

slg wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but I'm not the one who lumped those two together. That quote in the article says the conservative critics are the ones jumping to use Jones' ban as evidence of anti-conservative bias. The "critics" are self-identifying as Jones' allies. That is a red flag in my book since many of Jones' views don't deserve respect.

I think the Democratic Socialists of San Francisco deserve no respect; and their policy advocacy will only lead to higher rents, more homelessness and more despair. But I'm not going to take their ability to use the internet away. In High school I really hated NetNanny - I'm not sure why so many people are so determined to become NetNanny.

No one took away Alex Jones' ability to use the internet. They took away his ability to use their platform to spread his message after violating their TOS.

He is free to start his own Facebook, Twitter, etc.

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

#540

Post by michaelmrose » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 7:52 AM UTC

Bendingo wrote: post #536

michaelmrose wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would collaborate with my coworkers to get him fired. In the end after a few dozen unrelated complaints about random different things their supervisor would be thinking about getting rid of them.

I presume you would only complain about the workplace behaviour of this skinhead. If your target skinhead kept all his skinhead behaviour out of the workplace, and only displayed respect and tolerance to his colleagues, would you still organise to get him fired?

To be clear skinhead is sort of ambiguous. I'm reading neonazi and I think you meant neonazi but people do actually use the term to mean other things it seems.

If you mean neonazi I would for no reason I can imagine tolerate them. Would you tolerate someone who hated and wanted to subjugate or murder some portion of your loved ones because they were polite at work so they could earn a living?