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

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

#651

Post by methodover » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 9:34 PM UTC

philwelch wrote: post #643

methodover wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against. 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.

> I'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against.

Never said that you were.

> I am noticing an implication on your part that animus against white people, or animus against men, is acceptable and welcome in the workplace.

Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there.

Perhaps you ought to read a bit more carefully.

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

#652

Post by Dylan16807 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 9:45 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #649

methodover wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. 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,…

> I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation.

Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights.

The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop that discrimination, that that type of discrimination counts.

That's why this language exists.

And it's not a bad thing to prioritize groups that are being treated worse. Because when you try to prioritize no one, you often end up using the majority as the barometer of whether things are fine. The fact that some people have it a lot worse gets forgotten, and the problems go unfixed.

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

#653

Post by methodover » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 9:47 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #649

methodover wrote: post #608

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. 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,…

> Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation.

You’re in favor of gay rights. I don’t get why you’re so opposed to using the phrase gay rights. If you think gay people are equal, and gay relationships should be treated the same as straight ones, then you’re in favor of gay rights.

This is not complicated.

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

#654

Post by 07d046 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 10:31 PM UTC

dang wrote: post #607

07d046 wrote: post #560

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Chinese New Year can be political. Why is it celebrated under that name in Western countries, rather than Tết or Korean New Year or just Lunar New Year? And then add Chinese money funding the events for some soft power propagation...

It looks like you've been using HN primarily for political-ideological-national battle. That's a violation of the site rules, and we ban accounts that do it, so if you'd review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and please stop doing it, we'd appreciate it.

Okay. I'm very intellectually curious about China, and I hope other people are too. I mostly comment on these sorts of topics because, relatively speaking, I know slightly more than the average HNer, but I'll take this into consideration.

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

#655

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 10:54 PM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #652

ThomPete wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. 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,…

> I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights. The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop tha…

In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all.

You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights".

So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.

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

#656

Post by ThomPete » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 10:55 PM UTC

methodover wrote: post #653

ThomPete wrote: post #649

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. 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,…

> Unless you are telling me that Gays have rights other people don't have then no I am not misusing the language. I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. You’re in favor of gay rights. I don’t get why you’re so opposed to using the phrase gay rights. If you think gay people are equal, and gay relationships shoul…

I have already explained why I have a problem with it. Gay s don't have rights because they are gays they have rights because they are humans. So yes it's not that complicated.

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

#657

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 11:14 PM UTC

methodover wrote: post #651

philwelch wrote: post #643

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against. 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.

> I'm not arguing in favor of racial discrimination, so I'm not sure what straw man you think you're arguing against. Never said that you were. > I am noticing an implication on your part that animus against white people, or animus against men, is acceptable and welcome in the workplace. Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there. Perhaps you ought to read a bit more carefully.

> Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there.

So why specify minorities and women?

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

#658

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 11:35 PM UTC

nepeckman wrote: post #647

philwelch wrote: post #631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> It's like a lot of the classic civil liberties scenarios, like how the "ticking time bomb scenario" can justify torture... 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…

> 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.

Well, there are two options:

If a lot of people seem to give credence to their ideas, then we absolutely have to debate those ideas in the public sphere, as overtly as possible, and because we happen to be right, we will prevail in an open debate.

If, as seems to be the case today, almost nobody gives credence to their ideas, then we just let them make fools of themselves, kind of like how no one minds David Icke's claims about how the British royal family are secretly reptilians from outer space.

> 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.

I would actually question the notion that these groups are growing in size and influence. While it's hard to have a perfectly controlled experiment, here's an interesting data point. One of the most politically successful overt white supremacists, David Duke, has run for political office on numerous occasions, including two campaigns for a US Senate seat in Louisiana. Duke went from polling at 11.5% (141,489 votes) for a Louisiana US Senate election in 1996 to 3% (58,581 votes) for a Louisiana US Senate election in 2016.

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

#659

Post by methodover » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 11:36 PM UTC

ThomPete wrote: post #655

Dylan16807 wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am simply saying that there is no difference between gay rights and human rights. It's a human right to marry no matter your sexual orientation. Sure. But the term "X rights" is emphasizing that X are being denied those human rights. The problem with saying you're in favor of "human rights" is that everyone will agree with you, even the ones causing the problems. They don't realize you're telling them to stop tha…

In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all. You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there and thus it becomes a political statement were open doors are kicked in because it's popular NOT because it's important in those companies to focus on "gay rights". So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way…

> In many of those companies where X are celebrated the most they aren't an issue. That's the irony of it all.

It's not ironic. It's causal. Discrimination against minorities is less of an issue in companies where minorities are explicitly and openly accepted. There's a causal relationship there.

> You don't need to focus on gay rights in Google, FB, etc they are non issues there

They might be for now, but the world outside is less accepting. So long as the world outside has a problem with minorities, companies need to be steadfast about ensuring that the animus outside doesn't survive inside. Think of it like a vaccine.

> So it's not really a solution to anything but rather just a way to do virtue signalling in companies.

Uhh, virtue signaling is still a great reason to be supportive of minorities?

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

#660

Post by taysic » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 11:47 PM UTC

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #591

taysic wrote: post #443

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Disagree. I don't think of covering my expenses when traveling as a "perk". I consider it part of the minimum standard of fair dealing. And, for those who don't see a problem with this, do you see a problem if some other company specifically won't reimburse for Mexican restaurants?

I see your point - I think a lot of things today boil down to: a substantial number of people, and in this case science too, has agreed that one action is "good" for the planet. However, not everyone agrees - some people feel that all actions should be seen equally.

What I'm trying to say is that many would agree We Work are trying to do something good for the planet here. Another group of people don't see it that way.

Me personally - I would say in this instance the company should have liberty to exercise their own preference (incl Mexican restaurants). If it is ridiculous to their employees, they will quit. I believe in this case they have a substantial number of employees who don't mind or understand their reasoning.

Either way, I don't find it a human rights violation or anything.