Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.
Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write…
'should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics'
He absolutely did no such thing and this is an incredibly disingenuous representation. You can still argue he should be fired without this.
True, but by the same token, there is a clear distinction between these two opinions: 1) I believe the government should outlaw firing people based on what they say in the office 2) I believe that companies should not fire people based on what they say in the office. Believing in small government doesn't mean you have no opinion on cultural norms. It just means you don't think the government should enforce them. But…
it is not just conservatives that do not grasp that The 2 statements are the difference between a liberty minded person and the authority minded person Liberty mined (or libertarian) can easily separate their personal beliefs on what is "proper" but still allow that other people may view differently and as long as they are not harming them (or anyone else) should be allowed to live their life in the manner they deem…
The world is not this simple. There are some speech that should be protected and some that maybe should be banned. (Eg. criticism of the workplace [see also calls for forming a labor union], whistle-blowing of illegal activities ... and on the other end, maybe abusing and harassing people based on their skin color, voice, and other elements of one's "phenotype", and maybe there should be some very basic beliefs that ought to be protected.)
Both of these absolutes (full libertari[ani]sm and full authoritarianism) are doomed to fail, and even throwing them out as some nice first principles to start from seems to be borderline useless. (At least it seems the last 10+ years of politics is throwing memes at each other that have been reduced to absurdity.)
Google did it to James Damore. People celebrated it, as it opposes their beliefs even though many psychologist publicly said that the gender difference identified in the memo are science backed.
Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics. The effect of which would silence both their work rights and free speech rights. Google, a private corporation, not a government, decided to stop contracting with him, as they have women and minorities on staff whose employment output likely outweighs his personal need to write…
> Damore wrote an essay basically arguing women and minorities should be incapable of joining the software profession based on their genetics.
That is completely false and you should be ashamed if yourself for spreading such blatant lies. I urge anyone reading your comment to check for themselves and read Damore's essay, which was well researched, rational and compassionate, the exact opposite of the kind of libel that has been used to slander him. Damore will be a case study at some point when reason returns and people look back and try to understand how it came to be that fools and liars became the arbitrers of what others were allowed to say and think.
Is your statement intended to be ironic? Gay people were heavily censored in the early 90s outside of cities like San Francisco and West Hollywood. It wasn't until Will and Grace premiered in 1998 that the needle began moving toward acceptance.
According to Wikipedia [1], comedy TV shows with LGBT characters by decade (which is probably a good proxy). Ellen's "coming out" episode was in 1997. 70s: 12 80s: 11 90s: 28 00s: 45 Willing to wager the trend is similar to movies. We had (just the ones I can recall off-hand, but had to lookup years): Paris is Burning ('90) My Own Private Idaho ('91) Fried Green Tomatoes ('91) Philadelphia ('93) To Wong Foo, Thanks f…
> Of course, most of these role were filled by cis people.
Acting is about pretending to be someone else but, in any case, aren't most of these characters "cis people"?
> how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other The trick is to create channels with limited audiences, where you can set an expectation of which ideas are acceptable and which are not.* It always has been, but the the arrival of new communication methods has disrupted the traditional channels, and now every idea is propagated to a much larger and looser audience, which aren't aware or don't…
How do you manage reading every code of conduct and honoring it? The trouble I'm having with social changes, expectations, per person pronouns, and other things is that managing all of these interactions can be a crushing amount of cognitive load. Now that I think about it, it's the same challenge I have with microservices. Formerly simple interactions are now hellza complicated. I'm not fighting the trend. I'm just…
For some of this stuff, I'm pretty sure the difficulty of keeping up with it is the whole point - it's effectively a way of signalling that you're part of the right group of people with the right views and connections, and what stops outsiders from just learning to imitate the signals is the way things which were mandatory suddenly flip to horribly offensive without rhyme or reason.
The world, in general, is abandoning the past two centuries in which freedom has risen, to become illiberal, and enforce intellectual orthodoxies. It is more obvious and markedly so in in places like Turkey, but even here in the US we see those who would blacklist all political enemies and dissenters. These efforts will ultimately fail here, but not before grave harm is inflicted; history will judge us as harshly as…
A chaplin recently had to resign in apology at a distinguished academic institution for ... making factual and insightful comments about the George Floyd incident.[1] McCarthy eventually was shamed and disgraced by his casual destructiveness. "Senator. You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?" [1] https://nypost.com/2020/06/17/mit-chaplain-resigns-over-em…
If only asking if somebody had no sense of decency would achieve anything in our current world.
I argued with a family member about this just the other day. She was trying to get a faculty member at a local university fired for saying something offensive on Twitter. I asked her what happens after we get him fired? Can he earn back the worthiness to again feed his family? Will he need to denounce his views or just stop spewing them publicly? Will he just need to collect unemployment for the rest of his life now that we've deemed him a heretic unworthy of work?
The answers of her and her friends bounced between "I don't care what happens to racists like him" and calling me a racist for "defending" him. One participant said that he'll just have to work a job making far less like "the rest of us." As if there's a cap on how much money racists are allowed to make. I read everything he said that offended people, and I didn't see anything racist, as far as I can tell, he just hates protesters and "PC" culture.
I just can't shake the first 3 words of The Constitution from my thoughts lately. Very nice of the LA Times to include a picture of it at the top of the page. We are not two separate entities in this country, the government and the NOT government. We are all The People. And we should all uphold the rights guaranteed in The Constitution to all of our fellow citizens.
I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted…
There's people trying to get things done and then there's people trying to get in the spotlight with virtue signaling. And yes, they are willing to do actual harm to the first group's livelihood to get in that spotlight.
I understand that there are a lot of people who are hurting right now, and I empathize with their pain, but how can we share out most wonderful and beautiful ideas with each other or convey important information to the public if we believe there might be serious reprisals against us if we "say the wrong thing". For example, I personally helped work against slavery on the Black Market in the Middle East, and I wanted…
Genuine question - I hang around in some pretty seriously left-wing, often social-justice-obsessed circles and I've never heard anyone complain about the term black market, or want to pretend that slavery doesn't go on in the middle east. Have you got examples of this kind of thing being commonplace? I have heard people complain that people complain about these things, but never first-hand experienced people's complaints about language beyond stuff that seems pretty benign like "don't use ableist or racist slurs". I would say that I'd be the most likely to see stuff like this - I spend a lot of time online, mostly in leftist and social justice circles, and most of my friend group in the real world aren't too different. I think that the idea that free speech is under attack is entirely a fabrication, and the idea that people get "offended" at this stuff is no more real. The term "triggered", which is so often used by the right to refer to people offended over nothing, is a term specifically referring to people with PTSD or trauma. You'd understand that they might want to be careful with subjects that might "trigger" them - i.e. set off episodes of PTSD - and when people give content or trigger warnings that's what they're talking about. No-one who liberals and the right might call a SJW cares about "offensive" content, and if anything leftist and social justice circles LOVE offensive content, they just hate when people openly and deliberately punch down. It is definitely true that leftists will criticise use of language, but when they do it's often that there's a good reason that is deliberately ignored by those who rail against this criticism (see use of "retard" or "spastic", or the fact that "aspergers" is named after a nazi who wanted to commit genocide on those with autism) but this idea that it's arbitrary or that everything is offensive isn't borne out by reality.
Got this in an from gab.ai ceo, === Let’s review the past week of internet censorship: The Federalist and Zerohedge were censored by Google TMZ removed their comment section to censor “hate speech” Gavin Mcinnes was banned from YouTube VDARE is losing their domain registrar Gab was blacklisted by Visa E Michael Jones had his books censored by Amazon Katie Hopkins was banned by Twitter @CarpeDonktum was banned by Twit…
It's pretty impressive that HN crowd got upset just by stating some facts.