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

On Recent Controversial Events

ebb.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 151 posts

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#51

Post by smacktoward »

breck wrote: post #36
haberman wrote: post #33

> organizations need not and should not elevate spokespeople and leaders who speak regularly on unrelated issues that organizations find do not advance their mission, and/or that alienate important constituents. I, like many other software freedom leaders, curtail my public comments on issues not related to FOSS. (Indeed, I would not even be commenting on this issue if it had not become a central issue of concern to…

Is this a good pattern though? Seems to me like a low standard for our leaders. You should be able to do more than one thing at once.

It’s not about doing more than one thing at once, it’s about picking your battles. Leaders have a limited amount of what I call “credibility capital” (see https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2003/03/where_leaders_f_1/) they can use to get things done. The more of it you spend on issues unrelated to your core strategic concerns, the less you have available to spend on those.

Some leaders have tons of credibility capital banked away, so they can afford to freelance on the side. But freelancing is a luxury. Spend too much on that and you’ll fail at your main job.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#52

Post by incompatible »

vkou wrote: post #43
pmichaud wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are people in prominent positions not allowed to have opinions or interests outside of their job? That is basically correct.

You're allowed to have interests outside of your job, but most workplaces expect you to leave them aside, and focus on doing WORK at work. If your job involves being a public speaker, who is 'on' 24/7, then that's what you have to deal with. You're always free to pursue flipping burgers, or fixing cars, where you only need to be focused on work for 40 hours a week.

Maybe once it was only leaders, but I think these days anybody can be harassed via their employer for saying controversial things on the Internet. I guess free speech still exists in non-controversial matters, and for people who don't have to worry about employment.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#53

Post by Supermancho »

> #MeToo is not a “frenzy”; it is a global movement by individuals who have been harmed seeking to hold both bad actors and society-at-large accountable for ignoring systemic wrongs

I'll kindly disagree there, since those characterizations (the link to the "frenzy" interpretation is in the blog) are independently accurate of the movement.

Edit: the downvotes are tragically ironic.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#54

Post by brennebeck »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

I think you need to pick a better example. I don’t believe a CEO saying “diversity is important, but not our only goal” would be pilloried by either of the currently polarized sides, while one that said “diversity is the best” would, likely, be pilloried by one side.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#56

Post by mantap »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

Just don't use your real name. You can post any controversial opinion you like on the internet but don't tie it back to your real identity if you don't want real world consequences. The internet is still a massive improvement to freedom of speech.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#57

Post by herostratus101 »

zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

Or imagine a CEO saying "there isn't authoritative evidence that racial diversity would benefit our company, and bringing race into hiring decisions is inherently discriminatory." At least 40% of the country more-or-less agrees with that position, but basically any CEO would lose their job for saying it. While publicly supporting racial discrimination in favor of underrepresented groups is almost mandatory.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#59

Post by lisp-missionary »

rmtech wrote: post #35
mistermann wrote: post #4

> In fact, RMS' views and statements posted on stallman.org about sexual morality escalated for the worse over the last few years. Each word is a linked to a comment, some of them fairly eye opening.

yes, it's clear that he has some unorthodox views, though all of them are backed by a degree of logic that most people don't apply to these things. I wouldn't personally touch any of these topics. Too controversial, no gain. But I can't really fault his logic. Of course, social and sexual morality runs on feelings rather than logic, and perhaps that's what RMS doesn't get!

I think what Stallman doesn't get is the same thing that I don't get, why should he at all have to be concerned with the feelings or even thoughts of everyone else in the entire world when speaking his mind. What makes other people's feelings or even thoughts so much more important that action should be taken against him if he's honest about what he thinks. By the way, some of the comments he's being demonized for would mean demonizing hundreds of millions of people living in much more civilized societies than America's.

Re: On Recent Controversial Events

#60

Post by herostratus101 »

mantap wrote: post #56
zaptheimpaler wrote: post #37

> It really doesn't matter what your view about the controversial issue is; a leader who refuses to stop talking loudly about unrelated issues eventually creates an untenable distraction from .... I can understand his position, but this is part of the picture of a core problem in society today. Its NOT that leaders aren't allowed to speak about controversial issues - its that they aren't allowed to advocate ONE side…

Just don't use your real name. You can post any controversial opinion you like on the internet but don't tie it back to your real identity if you don't want real world consequences. The internet is still a massive improvement to freedom of speech.

But it's much less likely that anyone will care what an anonymous alt has to say. And the far left is still doing everything in their power to shut down even anonymous speech they disapprove of.
Post reply on HN