641–650 of 728 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Please don't bring the brutalist style of internet political battle onto this site. It's guaranteed to lead to the flaming shit we see below. There are lots of other places on the web where you can practice this craft, but on HN we're trying to avoid the systemic effects it produces.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you post personal attacks like these again we will ban you. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and follow those rules when posting here.
Perhaps you could also put "Don't equate Nazis with the people they genocided" in there. I will not apologize nor will I stop attacking abhorrent people like this. It says a lot that my post is your priority and not the rest of the comments in this dumpster fire of a comment section.
But if you look upthread you'll see that I was careful not to single you out, and if you read the thread as a whole you'll see that we put hours of effort into moderating it (though you'll need 'showdead' set to 'yes' in your profile, as well as to uncollapse a bunch of comments, to see a lot of it).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’m not saying that animus doesn’t exist. Overt animus shouldn’t be tolerated in the workplace and deserves social condemnation, but the existence of animus doesn’t automatically bless or justify any and every political ideology that markets itself as “anti-Xist”. I have personally experienced animus based on my sex, race, and sexuality before, but I don’t want to be in a politicized workplace just because the govern…
> I don’t want to be in a politicized workplace just because the governing ideology is supposedly for my benefit. Workplaces need to say openly and often that, for every minority that's traditionally experienced discrimination in this country, " are equal and will always be treated with dignity, will be afforded the same benefits, and animus against will never be tolerated." If this count as "politicizing" the workpl…
I am noticing an implication on your part that animus against white people, or animus against men, is acceptable and welcome in the workplace. That's definitely a politicization I'm uncomfortable with.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.
I agree!
> The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.
I also agree!
However, I personally believe that if corporate censorship has a meaningful impact on the freedom of speech in a society then the fundamental problem is the amount of influence said corporation has on that society. The issue is the size and influence of the private entity - society-altering censorship is just a more visible manifestation of the root problem.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I would also offer for the debate: By search category: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?geo=US&q=%2Fm%2F01_... By category on Youtube: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?gprop=youtube&q=%2F... The latter is relevant as Alex Jones has a popular mobile app, YouTube, and podcast presence, which is not captured entirely by radio presence. If only he weren't banned, we could see how the popularity spike woul…
The quote I shared above included online numbers (not just pure AM/FM), by Talkers methodology. I don't know about YouTube. But search trends aren't a complete metric either, as even critics of Jones could be searching for things related to him. A search is not necessarily a sign of support or devotion, just a sign of curiosity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
The "flipped" situation isn't the same, but just like in my example no I wouldn't starve, I'd find a way since I'm an adult capable of providing for myself. That doesn't mean it is a nice thing to do to your employees. "You won't starve" isn't an excuse for the company's bad behavior.
But I disagree that the opposite of not doing 'nice things' for your employees is 'bad behavior'. There's a middle ground where the company is neither bad nor good just average.
Not paying for my alcohol isn't "ridiculous". Everyone unwinds in different ways - I wouldn't expect bike rentals, a massage, or a ticket to the movies to be part of my reimbursement.
I'm glad you have high standards for how your employers treat you - I think everyone should. I just think we take for granted how fortunate most of us are with regards to our jobs and careers compared to most workers and it puts us in a bit of a bubble.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Although, I'm curious to hear how the witch hunt you describe would not, in fact, happen with a similarly concerted attempt targeted at far-right views. This is a concern of mine, which is why I took time to differentiate Jones and Damore. I see one as having a legitimate cause for deplatforming, and the other as reactionary. > If anything, that's an argument that we don't have to ban Nazis, because all of that hap…
> This is a concern of mine, which is why I took time to differentiate Jones and Damore. I see one as having a legitimate cause for deplatforming, and the other as reactionary. Well, isn't that the thing? If you already accept as a given that censorship is legally and morally justified and you turn it into a mere policy decision of who is worthy of censorship, there is a real and present danger of that mere policy de…
That's all good, but we still have a bomb to find. If we say censorship is off the table of acceptable methods to combat Nazis, what are our tools? I'm going to stress again that I haven't seen any convincing argument that a passive approach will work here. The arguments all sound great ("Just ignore them and let them fizzle out!") but I'd like some historical precedents to look at before I can believe that's true. Additionally, the passive approaches don't mention that these groups are active and recruiting. They have plans and playbooks for radicalizing more members. I feel it is legitimate to worry that they will continue to galvanize and grow in power unless we stop them. But I am open to hearing alternative solutions to censorship, as long as they are more thought out and convincing.
> If you don't actually let racist people say overtly racist things...
I've got almost the same question here. In your ideal world, how do we respond when someone says something racist? Do we ignore it? Do we try to teach them why they're wrong? Do we denounce them and call it a day? These are serious questions.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a strawman argument. Pigs and cattle having the same rights as people is not why it is unethical to torture and eat them. Instead, it is because their behavior and nervous systems strongly suggest that they experience pain in the way that we understand it. Claiming that their non-humanness makes their suffering irrelevant, like some people do, is narrow-minded.
> Instead, it is because their behavior and nervous systems strongly suggest that they experience pain in the way that we understand it. "People are always means not ends.", albeit a very false sentence, is a good-enough approximation of how we interact as peers. Animals that do not qualify as people, do not fall within this model. Their needs, wants and pains are irrelevant except to the extent that others' ends mak…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
1. No but you will have to prioritize which is exactly what is happening right now. That's a problem. 2. I agree so why question the Parents motives? 3. Not confused at all. Those are not gay rights they are human rights. You can replace the word gay with more or less anything and you will have the same. (Try read headed, try white, try black, try Swedish, try freckled, try fat). If you are a human you should have th…
“Those are not gay rights they are human rights” You are misusing the English language. When a minority is targeted with animus and their rights are systematically violated, we tend to label the campaign to fight back against those things: Gay rights/Pride, Women’s rights/Feminism, African American’s rights, etc. This is done as a matter of pragmatism. There’s no priortization of one group’s rights over another. Are…
Yes there is a prioritization of one groups rights over another and if you don't see that you need to look more careful.
Do you think it's easy being fat, Ugly, Short, Stupid, Too skinny?
You are proving my point.
Supporting one group but not another i.e. putting resources into fighting for the acceptance of one group but not another is the very difintion of prioritization.
How many more fat people do you think there are than LGBTQ+
The right thing to do is accept them all, not focus on one group instead of another. Treat them as humans give them the same rights, treat them with equal respect, because they are human not because they are gay or straight or black or white or asian or fat etc.
It's about what I feel it's about what it is by definition when a workplace prioritizes the hardship of one group and not another. It goes deep into the corporate culture when it comes to hiring and decisions of who gets which position in the company etc.
Thats exactly the opposite of what humanism is. It doesn't divide it includes it doesn't prioritize it simply treat everyone the same and that is not done by making on groups hardships more important than others. At least not in any form of humanism I am prepared to support.