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

New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

ethicalsystems.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 734 posts

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#331

Post by luckylion »

twic wrote: post #263
yerwhat01010 wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(Someone commented that it's "insane" to say that you should be able to shoot someone if they attack you with their fists and I typed out a long reply, but they had deleted their comment before I could post it, so I'm going to post my reply here so I don't feel like I wasted my efforts) Yes, it absolutely is a valid reason to shoot someone, and anyone with training in firearms or self-defense would agree. You're not…

This reflects a peculiarly American perspective. This is now how the police operate in other countries. It is now how they should operate in the US.

You shouldn't try grabbing a cop's gun in Germany, or come at them with a knife, because you might get shot. I don't think it's that different in countries with armed police.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#332

Post by Matrixik »

livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

I would say exactly same is happening with health of human body or even how it's working. I simply stopped trying to correct others and talking at all about it. When people start conversing about it, I just shut up.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#333

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

phroobster wrote: post #96

I am so tired of constantly hearing about politics at my workplace. Politics have already made their way into the tv shows, music, video games, and online forums that I enjoy. At least let me disconnect from that outrage-fuel at work. It also affects team cohesion. I can easily collaborate with just about anyone when I don’t know their political beliefs. As soon as I find out someone holds opposing views on a topic I…

Making you uncomfortable is the point. An opressed person doesn't get to opt-out of politics about opresssion.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#334

Post by coldtea »

krapp wrote: post #320
coldtea wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. Expression of ideas is neither, and should not hav…

>The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue. >Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences". Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing. And the latter example has been upheld by the Supreme Court as protected free sp…

>Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing.

And yet courts all over the world are able to separate them from "expression of ideas" (here in Europe e.g. where we have and use libel laws).

It's not that hard either, unless we specifically go for edge case.

"X is a thief" can be libel.

"The climate is in danger/is not in danger and we should or shouldn't do so and so" is an expression of an idea, and can't be libel.

As long as you don't speak about someone in particular (a person or set of named persons, as opposed to ideas and abstract groups), and don't accuse them of being something criminal or derogatory (especially something they're not) you should be able to express any idea you like, how about that?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#335

Post by hilbert42 »

dr_dshiv wrote: post #118
livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

I would say that this is a failure of philosophy in political leadership. Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes. Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.

"Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes."

Well some of it has been influential, works by Aristotle and Plato for instance. In another post here I've mentioned Plato's Republic (now well over 200 years old). Its arguments about justice are still the cornerstone of our justice system these days—or at least they're supposed to be.

"Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy."

Unfortunately, that's true. It's not gone unnoticed that in recent decades many universities have closed down their liberal arts and often this includes their schools of philosophy. It's pretty terrible really.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#336

Post by teddyh »

msg3 wrote: post #180
efaref wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Limiting it to legal consequences is not enough. There are also physical and psychological safety consequences that are relevant. You're not, for example, free to speak your mind if expressing wrongthink will result in a punch to the face. In the context of a workplace (being the topic of this post, after all), one such consequence is the loss of your job. Something that is very real these days, with so-called activi…

Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason - I don't really see how that's relevant? Are you really saying that it should be impossible for someone to lose their job over what they say? If someone, for example, threatened to kill a co-worker, you don't think they should be fired? I appreciate that this is an extreme example, but when we talk about rights, don't we have to cover all examples of sp…

> Punching people in the face is illegal regardless of the reason

Sure, but see all the “punch nazis” memes. Examples:

https://web.archive.org/web/20210118210335/https://www.jwz.o...

https://punchingnazis.tumblr.com/

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#337

Post by amalcon »

Underqualified wrote: post #296
livinginfear wrote: post #80

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

One thing I read recently which seemed weird at first but has made me really consider a lot of things about current culture differently: "Taking offence is an act of aggression"

I don't mean to pick on you a bit here, but this feels like a good place to express something I've been having trouble with.

My parents raised me to do my best to neither take nor give offense. Most of my peers as a child were taught the same way. Obviously we're not Vulcans; We will sometimes inadvertently give offense, or respond emotionally to something that may have been meant innocuously. Yet so much of what I see in public discourse is reveling in both sides of that equation: deliberately trying to provoke emotional reactions from others, intentionally adhering to uncharitable interpretations of others' statements even after they have explained themselves, and celebrating the drama resulting from these things.

Civil discourse simply cannot function if this is a substantial part of pubic culture. There is no way to have a productive discussion if even one of the parties is deliberately provoking an emotional response. There is no way to have a productive discussion if even one of the parties is deliberately misinterpreting another in order to justify their own emotional response. Yet the dominant forms of public discourse these days include heavy doses of both of these things.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#338

Post by MomoXenosaga »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #192
dr_dshiv wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that this is a failure of philosophy in political leadership. Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes. Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.

> It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling. I was looking to put words on my feeling about this, and you did it perfectly. I was wondering why suddenly so many people voiced the same engaged opinion, while I know for having discussed with them in private settings that they don't think deeply about society. Now I realize that's because they want to look like they belong to a certain ki…

My brother is an artist and the stories he tells about the art world are hilarious. He's gay with brown skin and votes left so I consider him reasonably unbiased. Hardly a reactionary. Radicalisation on the left spectrum of the horseshoe.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#339

Post by etripe »

jdkoeck wrote: post #293
dTal wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you over-dignify yourself as the "sane" side. You believe you can perceive all the flaws in your opponents reasoning, they're obvious to you - but reject the possibility that they feel exactly the same way about you. The humility you expect from them - you aren't displaying it yourself. The situation has far more symmetry than you assert. The things you describe as political policies - they aren't. "Universal…

I agree with the overall point, there are plenty of sane people on the left, thank God. However, I want to defend the idea that some right wing opinions make a lot of logical sense on their own; their being valid does not require right-wing-specific value systems. Let's take one of the points you're criticizing. > someone who doesn't work and doesn't contribute to society doesn't deserve govt handouts Here's the logi…

> In a fair society

That's a central flaw in right-wing ideology. Society has never been fair, and probably never will be. People don't have the same opportunities in life, if nothing else due to the birth lottery. Adopting laissez-faire or "bootstrap" policies doesn't address this problem. As such, it very much is an irrational stance because it is incongruent with reality.

In other words, the right focuses on duty over rights, in extreme cases making welfare punitive. The left goes the other direction, focusing on rights over duty: government handout programs with few stipulations for the receiver.

The difference between the right and left here is that people on the right tend to presume fairness, and the left prescribes fairness - and conversely increasingly presumes oppression.

> the fruits of someone else's work

This is another, ignoring that we're social creatures and only thrived as a species because of co-operation. The left exaggerates in the other direction, pretending like we don't have a selfish gene and nowadays confusing outcome with opportunity. Individualism versus collectivism.

> efficiency

Yet the following are right-wing policies: teaching abstinence, the war on drugs, budget cuts to education... You might be right in some areas, but your definition of efficiency would need to be narrowed down specifically to budgetary efficiency.

In the context of your example, yes, it it more efficient to help someone financially while they're unemployed. It's also more efficient to decriminalise drugs and prostitution, to inform kids about sex and drugs, and to invest in education (as a proxy for success in life).

> common decency

Which has no objective definition by default.

I don't think there is such a thing as a political stance that is free from emotional axioms. At best, the political ideology can be internally consistent, with one point logically flowing from the basic principles, but there is always an external dependency on emotion. That said, there definitely is value in right-wing principles, just as there is in left-wing principles. The key is not becoming too entrenched or foaming at the mouth.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#340

Post by mytherin »

jdkoeck wrote: post #293
dTal wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you over-dignify yourself as the "sane" side. You believe you can perceive all the flaws in your opponents reasoning, they're obvious to you - but reject the possibility that they feel exactly the same way about you. The humility you expect from them - you aren't displaying it yourself. The situation has far more symmetry than you assert. The things you describe as political policies - they aren't. "Universal…

I agree with the overall point, there are plenty of sane people on the left, thank God. However, I want to defend the idea that some right wing opinions make a lot of logical sense on their own; their being valid does not require right-wing-specific value systems. Let's take one of the points you're criticizing. > someone who doesn't work and doesn't contribute to society doesn't deserve govt handouts Here's the logi…

The refined point (and all preceding points) are not based in any sort of actionable public policy. I would argue that that point is as much based in emotion as the leftist points the parent is talking about. Yes, it sounds good that in a fair society people should not be entitled to the fruits of someone else's work, except if they cannot work themselves. It sounds good to people of both sides. I would not label this as a very conservative viewpoint.

However, that is not what politics is (supposed to be) about. It is supposed to be about actionable policies and their effects. When putting this into an actionable public policy you run into many problems. How are you going to police the "except if they cannot work themselves" part? What are the requirements for "not being able to work"? How lenient are you there? What happens to people that fall through the cracks because of mistakes made in policing that (i.e. people that cannot get a job, but do not qualify for the help)?

How much money does it cost to police that, and what are the costs of not policing it at all? If the cost of policing is higher than the cost of not policing and just accepting that some people will take advantage of the system, is it still a good idea to police?

You can also contribute to society in ways that are not defined as work. What happens to someone that is taking care of children, or taking care of their sick parents? Should they be assisted financially, or not? If so, how do you define that?

Then there is the issue of automation. Perhaps people are not entitled to the fruits of other people's labor. But what about the labor of machines? As more and more jobs get automated, who is entitled to that? Should the owners of the machines reap all of the benefits while the rest of society is left with less and less as more and more jobs get automated away, or should this be divided amongst the total population?

Different people will answer all of these trade-offs in different ways, even if they may agree on the core view. Left-wing and right-wing people generally share most of their core views. Nobody wants more crime, more poverty, etc. The implementation of these policies are where disagreement and discussion happens.

Post reply on HN