Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

671–680 of 728 posts

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

#671

Post by dragonwriter »

manfredo wrote: post #184
landryraccoon wrote: post #157

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…

> One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races.

Not without ignoring the context, meaning, and focus.

> "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population

No, it's a dismissal of the central problem that BLM is organized to address.

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

#672

Post by wavefunction »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #586
RandomInteger4 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rather than speaking in generalities, can you specify particular political positions that you feel have been forced upon you?

I'm not the one you're asking, but... I'm a conservative Christian. I believe that homosexuality is a sin. The one co-worker who I knew was gay, I told him that straight out. I also continued to work with him, and kept him as my friend. (Lots of my friends are sinners. For that matter, so am I.) I continued to be someone he felt he could confide in - he'd come talk to me when he needed to gripe, because he knew he co…

Sin is not for you to judge though. That is for your G-d alone if you follow your scripture as I assume you assume you do.

"He looked around at them in anger and, deeply distressed at their stubborn hearts, said to the man, “Stretch out your hand.” He stretched it out, and his hand was completely restored."

Mark 3:5

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

#673

Post by _iyig »

ionised wrote: post #552
_iyig wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are 13 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is punishable by death, including Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan only imposes the death sentence for blasphemy. The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true) I’ve heard horror stories of ex-…

> The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true) Point out one of these Sharia courts on Google maps please.

Also, new WSJ piece out today with a travelogue through a Islamicized UK town, including Sharia courts and ubiquitous face veiling:

https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535...

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

#674

Post by wellWisherToday »

PunchTornado wrote: post #621
wellWisherToday wrote: post #609

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you. All the examples you gave should be seen as different opinion and a person should be able to have that and work peacefully. However if someone says that certain people are more capable because of their gender will you call it discriminatory? (I would think it is).

of course, because you then look at the gender before hiring someone and that's discrimination. however, it is not discrimination if someone is against favouring a certain gender in hiring to achieve a gender balanced workforce. that's just his opinion and should be able to say it without repercussions.

Yes completely agree.

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

#675

Post by philwelch »

methodover wrote: post #662
philwelch wrote: post #657

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Sorry what? You read in something that wasn’t there. So why specify minorities and women?

Oh, I see. You think that when I said that companies need to say openly and explicitly that they're cool with minorities, that this was a complete description of everything the company should do and say about the issue of unjust discrimination. Of course, I didn't say that. You read that in. It wasn't a complete description, just something I thought companies should also be doing. But that's fine, let me be clear now…

> In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender.

And my contention is that “no one should be discriminated against for their race and gender” is both necessary and sufficient. No need to give special treatment or attention to supposed “minorities” (note that women are in fact a majority).

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

#676

Post by methodover »

philwelch wrote: post #675
methodover wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh, I see. You think that when I said that companies need to say openly and explicitly that they're cool with minorities, that this was a complete description of everything the company should do and say about the issue of unjust discrimination. Of course, I didn't say that. You read that in. It wasn't a complete description, just something I thought companies should also be doing. But that's fine, let me be clear now…

> In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender. And my contention is that “no one should be discriminated against for their race and gender” is both necessary and sufficient. No need to give special treatment or attention to supposed “minorities” (note that women are in fact a maj…

I'm rolling my eyes at your "supposed minorities" comment. Women are a minority in tech, as I'm sure you know, and this is a forum that mostly targets tech. The rest of the groups that we're talking about are also minorities in the population as a whole.

As to your contention, I'm still not getting it. Why don't we play a game? I list off a few things that I've known companies to do in the past as a way of reaching out to or accommodating minorities, and you tell me which ones are objectionable to you and why. Here goes:

1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers

2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference

3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week

4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot)

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

#677

Post by belorn »

methodover wrote: post #676
philwelch wrote: post #675

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In addition to minority outreach and accommodation, there ought to exist a clear anti-discrimination policy saying that no one should be discriminated against for their race or gender. And my contention is that “no one should be discriminated against for their race and gender” is both necessary and sufficient. No need to give special treatment or attention to supposed “minorities” (note that women are in fact a maj…

I'm rolling my eyes at your "supposed minorities" comment. Women are a minority in tech, as I'm sure you know, and this is a forum that mostly targets tech. The rest of the groups that we're talking about are also minorities in the population as a whole. As to your contention, I'm still not getting it. Why don't we play a game? I list off a few things that I've known companies to do in the past as a way of reaching o…

Let me jump in in the discussion and answer why those are objectionable and how to fix them so the same objective can be achieved while not be discriminative.

> 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers

Services and gifts are from a practical point of view just different forms of bonuses given to employees. A extra room cost money to rent, and if employees are given free time in there then that also cost the company money. The solution is to calculate how much the prayer room cost, divide it per employee that wish to use it, and give each employee that money to do as they wish. The Muslim employees can pool their bonus for the room, and the rest can either pool it together for something else or increase their individual pay check. This way the company do not discriminate and a person who believe in the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same benefit and support at the company as a Muslim.

> 2. A company hosts a Women in Tech conference If you have to ask attendees or speakers if they identify as a woman, then what you are doing is explicit discrimination. This is objectionable so simply don't. Organize event instead so that you reaching out to intended minorities by looking at what works and interests those groups.

> 3. A company hosts a GLBT in Tech mixer during Pride Week

Same as #1. If a company spend money on one group, then that is an indirect bonus to those employees who belong to that group. If its not possible to provide every employee the same benefit, at least make the selection process transparent and as fair as possible so both a GLBT mixer as well as a nudist mixer can be created if both exist as groups at the company.

> 4. A social media company creates a couple special features for Black History month (e.g., Twitter's @Blackbirds bot)

Very similar to the above one. Who decide which group deserve the special feature? I would suggest something similar to Wikipedia's featured articles, where any topic can be suggested and a fair process decide which one get selected. The more transparent the better.

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

#678

Post by methodover »

belorn wrote: post #677
methodover wrote: post #676

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm rolling my eyes at your "supposed minorities" comment. Women are a minority in tech, as I'm sure you know, and this is a forum that mostly targets tech. The rest of the groups that we're talking about are also minorities in the population as a whole. As to your contention, I'm still not getting it. Why don't we play a game? I list off a few things that I've known companies to do in the past as a way of reaching o…

Let me jump in in the discussion and answer why those are objectionable and how to fix them so the same objective can be achieved while not be discriminative. > 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers Services and gifts are from a practical point of view just different forms of bonuses given to employees. A extra room cost money to rent, and if employees are giv…

This is a joke response, right?

In case not, you’re way over thinking this. In points one and three, you’re looking to try and give something like compensation for these individual things. You’re not looking at (1) the value of being an accommodating, inclusive company or (2) that an individual who doesn’t take advantage of those particular accommodations enjoys other ones.

Your whole point about point four is silly. You don’t need some gigantic transparent democratic process to let some enterprising employees take it upon themselves to do a cool project like blackbirds. Just let them go do it.

About the women in tech conference, Grace Hopper allows men to attend; seems reasonable to follow their lead.

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

#679

Post by belorn »

methodover wrote: post #678
belorn wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me jump in in the discussion and answer why those are objectionable and how to fix them so the same objective can be achieved while not be discriminative. > 1. A company makes a prayer room available for their Muslim employees to do their daily prayers Services and gifts are from a practical point of view just different forms of bonuses given to employees. A extra room cost money to rent, and if employees are giv…

This is a joke response, right? In case not, you’re way over thinking this. In points one and three, you’re looking to try and give something like compensation for these individual things. You’re not looking at (1) the value of being an accommodating, inclusive company or (2) that an individual who doesn’t take advantage of those particular accommodations enjoys other ones. Your whole point about point four is silly.…

That you view it as a joke shows the problem.

Bonuses and gifts are a real problem, and is recognized as taxed income here in Sweden. Just a few weeks ago I had a similar situation at work where a coworker said "I would be fine if they just gave it as a bonus to every one", so discriminative gifts is very noticeable for those not being in the receiving end. Gifting one group might feel very accommodating and inclusive for them, but it is no different than raising the wages based on religion identity no matter how one tries to dress it up.

If a company want to discriminate and gift a selected people based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation then naturally they don't need any gigantic transparent democratic process. They can just do what past discrimination has done, flying as close to the law of illegal behavior as they can. I don't agree with it and I find it wholly immoral.

And yes there are conference and people who has learned to be less discriminative when doing outreach programs. However allowing men to enter a conference is a rather low bar, just as it would be if the genders were reversed. My personal line is if Grace Hopper has "only if you identify as women then..." in the way they operate. Looking at the scholarship application it does seem to say that both men and women can apply, but given the image on the site it seems that only women has ever been awarded scholarships. If there is a unofficial rule that only allow women then that is discrimination as any other.

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

#680

Post by ThomPete »

methodover wrote: post #669
ThomPete wrote: post #664

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> We aren't talking about just accepting them we are talking about making it specific issues to fight for. 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 objectio…

A company can do what it wants but when it decides to fight for one cause then it's ignoring others by definition or it won't be in business for long. You claimed you can fight for more things at once I am saying you can't fight for all things and thus you will be ignoring some by favoring others.

In this case, it's especially absurd as those companies that are most vocal about supporting ex "gay rights" didn't have the problem to begin with.

And no it's not addressed and you are setting up a strawman.

No, it's like saying. Let's make sure the kitchen has a fire extinguisher only for gay people. That's what you are saying and that illustrates exactly the problem here.

What about the fat? the ugly? The introvert? the short, the stutters etc. That's why fire extinguishers are for EVERYONE not just one type of person.

You don't have to advertise that you are cool with gay people to be cool with gay people that's the point.

You don't have to celebrate gay, white, black, Hispanic, straight, man, woman to be cool with any of them.

And that' brings us back to the beginning. You don't have gay rights, you have human rights. Unless you don't subscribe to being a human which would be odd then you don't have rights I don't have. You don't have your own fire-extinguisher in the kitchen. But the reality is that today that's exactly what's happening and that's sad because life is complicated for everyone, not just gay people or minorities.

Post reply on HN