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

Resignation

andymills.work

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 113 posts

Re: Resignation

#101

Post by gabereiser »

zepto wrote: post #97
gabereiser wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People? sure. Businesses? Nope. People can discriminate all they want to so long as they don’t infringe of the freedoms of others. Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms. I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business. Should they discriminate against me I have no other option. If a person discriminated against me I can just p…

> “Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms.“ Being forced to do work they don’t want to do would impede the first party’s freedoms.

No one is forcing anyone to do work. If the business asks them to do something that goes against their personal freedoms they are free to leave.

Re: Resignation

#102

Post by gabereiser »

zepto wrote: post #99
gabereiser wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not refusing service based on sex/age/race/sexual orientation/religion is a good start. It’s also good for business. If a patron of a business comes to do business, that business should welcome the business and ignore the personal biases and their own bigoted beliefs.

You didn’t answer my question. I asked who gets to define what counts as bigoted, not what you count as bigoted.

Bigotry is already defined: Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

Criteria in this case being the same equal opportunity laws for employment should be applied towards the front of house.

Same folks who determine EOE law violations, same folks who determine discrimination violations.

Re: Resignation

#103

Post by athriren »

chmod600 wrote: post #36
dfabulich wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Indeed. Those who would like to know more may want to read the NYT's own repudiation of Caliphate. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/18/business/media/new-york-t... This Vulture article is a good overall summary of the timeline, which I would absolutely call a "scandal." https://www.vulture.com/2021/01/caliphate-controversy-new-yo... Those who are replying here to decry "cancel culture" are falling for his story. This…

It seems he should have been removed. But it also seems like the "why" is important -- was it job performance or digging into his history?

if a person who is nominally in a journalistic role ends up producing fabulism and they are then demoted and reassigned, it’s better for that person to lead everyone to believe they were pushed out for irrelevant things many years ago rather than the issue with their work at their workplace that in fact literally just occurred. it’s just confusing, because in any other context i don’t think people would fall for this whataboutism.

a pediatrician who gave babies placebo vaccinations and was then demoted and assigned to “what does being a doctor actually mean” class and then quit, and then told everyone he was fired because people found out he got speeding tickets constantly would be dismissed out of hand once everyone found out about the whole fake baby vaccination thing.

andy is a liar. he purposefully mislead his colleagues when he had good reasons to doubt the credibility of his single source. he produced a work of fiction and the premiere newspaper in the world took it as carte blanche and shared it with the world as the truth. it does not matter what happened with him a decade ago, or three years ago, or even immediately before caliphate. the only relevant thing in this story is that he failed miserably at his only job.

Re: Resignation

#104

Post by zepto »

gabereiser wrote: post #102
zepto wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t answer my question. I asked who gets to define what counts as bigoted, not what you count as bigoted.

Bigotry is already defined: Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction; in particular, prejudice against a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group. Criteria in this case being the same equal opportunity laws for employment should be applied towards the front of house. Same folks who determine EOE law violations, same folks who determine discrimination violati…

> “Obstinate or unreasonable attachment to a belief, opinion, or faction”

This is a completely subjective criteria.

So now you have an appointed group who gets to force people to do work, under penalty of law.

That seems like a bad idea.

I am against bigotry.

I question the use of force as a way to alleviate it.

Re: Resignation

#105

Post by zepto »

gabereiser wrote: post #101
zepto wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> “Businesses should be required to not discriminate because it would impede the other party’s freedoms.“ Being forced to do work they don’t want to do would impede the first party’s freedoms.

No one is forcing anyone to do work. If the business asks them to do something that goes against their personal freedoms they are free to leave.

This makes no sense in light of what you said earlier:

If you claim this:

“I don’t have a choice for some things, I have to buy from a certain business.”

Then you claim that people can simply leave a job.

What if they also have no choice and have to work at a certain business?

Re: Resignation

#106

Post by throwmylifawy »

zepto wrote: post #87
gabereiser wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree. Businesses shouldn’t be allowed bigoted freedoms.

Who defines what counts as bigoted?

We do as a collective culture! Bigotry is subjective and changes with time. There is never going to be an ironclad list of protected classes that are going to remain fixed in time. That is because discrimination and what society feels counts as discrimination changes over time.

Re: Resignation

#107

Post by throwmylifawy »

stephen82 wrote: post #63
keyanp wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

See: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26041829

Those who downvoted me think I support such behavior; I don't! You know what they say: what goes around, comes around. Those who go after anyone who has a different opinion than theirs, will face their own actions eventually, one way or another. What I have stated is a realization: you are not allowed to make mistakes anymore, because you are immediately condemned; period! This downvoting here proves my point 100%. W…

Before you become radicalized ask yourself this question: If the culture does not moderate societal behavior, then who will? There is no other tool in a social group, but to cancel those who are extremely out of line. I am sorry to break it to you. If we do not do so, we reinforce toxic and corrupt behavior which is harmful to the group as a whole. I am not sure why we now pretend this is new human behavior.

Re: Resignation

#108

Post by throwmylifawy »

julianmarq wrote: post #89

The thing I find most notable here is the reason he's being forced out. I mean, this guy probably does deserve to be fired... But Callimachi deserves to be fired right along with him, and she isn't. They were terrible at their jobs. The reason here highlights two problems: First, that he might be being made the scapegoat, probably to distract from the huge failure of the organization as a whole that that podcast was.…

> It highlights how hypocritical and toxic the cancel culture mentality is. And I don't think it will change if they keep on succeeding.

It sounds like you have been radicalized. Who is this “they” you speak of that is destroying your freedoms? Who is the secret cabal? What is the disconnect between you saying: “this guy probably does deserve to be fired...” along with Callimachi, and thousands of others on a public forums saying the same thing? If you would take a moment to be self reflective, you would be able to see that the “cancel culture” is not a “they”, but it is normal human behavior we all share including yourself.

Re: Resignation

#109

Post by [deleted] »

throwmylifawy wrote: post #108
julianmarq wrote: post #89

The thing I find most notable here is the reason he's being forced out. I mean, this guy probably does deserve to be fired... But Callimachi deserves to be fired right along with him, and she isn't. They were terrible at their jobs. The reason here highlights two problems: First, that he might be being made the scapegoat, probably to distract from the huge failure of the organization as a whole that that podcast was.…

> It highlights how hypocritical and toxic the cancel culture mentality is. And I don't think it will change if they keep on succeeding. It sounds like you have been radicalized. Who is this “they” you speak of that is destroying your freedoms? Who is the secret cabal? What is the disconnect between you saying: “this guy probably does deserve to be fired...” along with Callimachi, and thousands of others on a public…

[deleted]

Re: Resignation

#110

Post by chmod600 »

athriren wrote: post #103
chmod600 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems he should have been removed. But it also seems like the "why" is important -- was it job performance or digging into his history?

if a person who is nominally in a journalistic role ends up producing fabulism and they are then demoted and reassigned, it’s better for that person to lead everyone to believe they were pushed out for irrelevant things many years ago rather than the issue with their work at their workplace that in fact literally just occurred. it’s just confusing, because in any other context i don’t think people would fall for this…

Why wasn't he forced to resign essentially immediately afterward, then?
Post reply on HN