661–670 of 728 posts
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.
Why doesn't the company provide a per diem for a legitimate business expense instead of trying to inject their (his? her?) morals into it? It is a needless intrusion on the part of the business. Ugh.
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. 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?
There. All better?
The manifesto states "There’s only going to be one core rule in the group, and it’s that if you attack a person’s character, rather than their ideas, you will be banned." People whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will often say this sort of thing- as though the two things, a person's character and their ideas, are somehow not connected. I'm not sure where they get the idea that the ideas they support indica…
Also in the memo he stats >Your colleagues are afraid because they know that they — not their ideas — will be attacked. They know that all the talk of “openness to different perspectives” does not apply to causes of “social justice,” immigration, “diversity”, and “equality.” On this issues, you can either keep quiet or sacrifice your reputation and career. You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the U…
I would ask anyone who believes that the US should work to to control entry at the southern border to question why they believe this is an important thing to focus on. What is the root of that belief? Why should the US be exclusive? What benefit do you derive from keeping it exclusive, and why is the accident of your birth somehow firmer ground of entitlement to citizenship than any other abstract concept?
Perhaps they are not "a racist" but I strongly believe that the desire to control the border is deeply rooted in racism in America, and anyone having this discussion needs to be willing to consider the basis for their ideas.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about?
This is what is absurd about it. Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies, conservatives on the other hand are. And no I am not a conservative.
Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree. The exact opposite of what it's preaching.
A lot of hassle could be spared if we all followed one simple rule while at work: "In polite company, it’s not proper to talk about sex, religion, or politics" No matter what you have to say on those topics, you'll step on someone's toes. There's really no good reason to talk about it at work unless you're in a brothel, church, or a capital building.
Maybe it's a US thing? In France we regularly have somewhat heated (in the sense that we obiously disagree) talks about politics, religion and so on but it remains cordial becaus, you know, we're adults... Isn't it simpler for everyone to behave like respectful adults even when you fundamentally disagree than making a blanket rule to only ever discuss non sensible subjects?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Also in the memo he stats >Your colleagues are afraid because they know that they — not their ideas — will be attacked. They know that all the talk of “openness to different perspectives” does not apply to causes of “social justice,” immigration, “diversity”, and “equality.” On this issues, you can either keep quiet or sacrifice your reputation and career. You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the U…
>You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission. I would ask anyone who believes that the US should work to to control entry at the southern border to question why they believe this is an important thing to focus on. What is the root of that belief? Why should the US be exclusive? What benefit do you derive from keeping it exc…
I think this issue is tricky, because some political ideology that the "right" expresses involve a statement of the identity of their coworkers. I find that in the valley, people express diverse set of political economic ideologies, but sensitive social issues are taboo. I think people probably shouldn't view it as lack of diversity of political opinions, it's more that statements and ideology expressed at work shoul…
> some political ideology that the "right" expresses involve a statement of the identity of their coworkers. That stereotype is the problem. Lots of people on the right have nothing against women's rights, lgbt rights, black rights etc, but still gets treated as if were against those things just for expressing unrelated conservative talking points.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Is that really the same though? The key differences as I see them: 1) History. Racism has been taught for many years (for a long time "scientifically proven"). I'm guessing Icke's views are rather new. The leads to 2) Cultural relevancy. There are plenty of racist people out there, each generation teaching the next. I'm not sure how many people believe that about the royal family, but I'm guessing not as many. This matters because 3) Racists are harmful. Unless Icke is about to break into the palace to prove his theory, he seems pretty harmless. We can leave him alone to make a fool of himself. Discrimination and hate crimes are not things I want to leave alone, I'd like them to end.
> I would actually question the notion that these groups are growing in size and influence.
While size may be debatable, I think influence is less so. The data I've seen says hate crimes are up in numbers. The president refuses to call these groups terrorists. Social media is filled with their propaganda and troll mobs. This doesn't feel like a group that is losing power or influence.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. So no it's not causal, it's exactly the opposite correlational. Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about? This is what is absurd about it. Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies, conservatives on the other hand are. And no I am not a conservative. Virtue signal…
Huh? I think you're missing some key words in this sentence. You're trying to say that it's inappropriate for a company to "fight for" gay acceptance? Is that it? That could have many different meanings, depending on who you ask. Why don't you show me a specific thing a SV company has done that you find objectionable?
> Since when was being a gay a problem any of the SF/SV based companies we are talking about?
Already addressed this issue. Current existence of anti-gay animus IS NOT a prerequisite for inoculating a company against anti-gay animus.
It's like I'm saying "Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher" and you're saying "But the kitchen isn't on fire yet."
Anti-gay animus exists outside of the workplace; it is a threat, even in the SF bay area. (Heck, I was called a faggot on MUNI the other day for holding hands with my partner.) It's important to keep it outside the workplace. This is a point you've neglected.
> Gays are not minorities in SF/SV companies
??? Gay people are not in the majority, what are you talking about?
> Virtue signaling is nothing but that. It's dishonest. It helps no one and alienates everyone who doesn't agree
Virtue signaling is ... dishonest? What? If a company advertises that they're cool with gay people, and they are actually cool with gay people, that is not dishonest.
As far as alienating people who disagree, GREAT! That's the whole point! Those people who have a problem with gay people should find somewhere else to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm genuinely curious what "All lives matter" stands for except for being opposed to the idea that "Black lives matter". There's a key difference here - "Black lives matter" attempts to point out that there is discrimination in law enforcement that seems to single out minorities. Correcting this discrimination would be good. What policy change does "All lives matter" advocate? Do those policy changes indeed benefit "…
One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races. "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population (and thus, have better chances of creating change). It's viable to argue that sticking with the former is worth the exclusive rhetoric because Black people suffer disproportionately. But the notion of actually _firing_ someone over using "all lives matter" as th…
Is it solely the name that you object to, or the idea that discrimination in law enforcement against minorities should be rectified? If it's the former, it seems like such a minor point, like saying you don't like Twitter because the name is dumb. The fact that you don't like the marketing name of a non profit / activist movement seems like such a trivial thing to start an entire counter-movement over. If it's the latter, and you think that discrimination against minorities isn't worth making a fuss over, that is actually pretty racist.