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

351–360 of 734 posts

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#351

Post by efaref »

krapp wrote: post #325
twic wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. For example, if the government allows its critics to speak freely, but then puts them in prison [1], is that free speech? No. So because of a consequence, speech is not free. If someone says they hate you and want to kill your family, and you avoid them as a result, is that free sp…

> Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. Then people should stop stating the former as an argument, because "all speech should be free from all consequences" is what it means.

Exactly. People say they want freedom of speech, but really they want the ability to say whatever they want while also having the ability to punish others for saying things they don't like.

Similarly, people say that some countries have freedom of speech, when in reality every country has ways of punishing people for making certain noises out of their mouths - they just differ in which noises and to what degree.

The effect of this dishonesty is there is a hidden social contract on what you are, or are not, allowed to say, and everyone has to negotiate that. The article is about how people are becoming more self-censorious as a consequence of this social contract tightening up.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#352

Post by hilbert42 »

signal11 wrote: post #330
hilbert42 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind." You're dead right and it's damned terrible. I long for both formal and informal debates on many topics but without my opponents becoming annoyed or offended (as so often they do nowadays). These days it seems almost impossible to debate any subject without upsetting someone. I now long for the type of television programs that I reme…

About TV debates — A lot of these have moved to podcasts and YouTube these days. Eg the Oxford Union debates on YouTube, some of which are quite popular. I suspect some talk radio, eg PBS and BBC Radio 4, will also have interesting debates. Radio 4’s magazine programmes like The Life Scientific , In Our Time , The Public Philosopher , Reith Lectures etc certainly make for extremely interesting listening.

I know, thanks, they're great. Recently I've seen quite a few. Only several days ago I watched for the first time in many decades the program about A.J.P. Taylor and his controversial 1961 book The Origins of The Second World War (which, incidentally I have a copy of).

You're right, we really need to spread the word at every opportunity.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#353

Post by Chazprime »

Aerroon wrote: post #207
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.

Politics in English-speaking countries, particularly the US, seems to have partly become entertainment. Some of the "fans" appear more fervent than even the politicians themselves. I'm an outsider and even I've been drawn into US politics, because it is entertaining. Sometimes it's more entertaining than a fictional story. But I doubt that this makes for sensible governing.

Entertaining, or entertaining in a “US politics is like a car crash” way?

I have a hard time discerning myself at times.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#354

Post by da_big_ghey »

evgen wrote: post #226
read_if_gay_ wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the assumption that 'viewpoint diversity' is either valuable or worth cultivating on all subjects, this is not true. Ah yes. It shouldn’t even be legal for people to question your viewpoint. Because when has discussion ever been a valuable thing? Or when has a political fashion ever turned out to be sorely wrong, and new viewpoints were needed? Wait, I remember a few times - but I’m sure that this time is going to…

> Ah yes. It shouldn’t even be legal for people to question your viewpoint. Because when has discussion ever been a valuable thing? Sometimes discussion serves no value. I will not bother to discuss racial theories with a member of the Proud Boys or KKK because the discussion is a waste of time. No one has made any claim regarding legality here, so you are free to question any viewpoint and should be prepared to face…

> I will not bother to discuss racial theories with... KKK

why? there are persons who do this and have success. if you are desiring for to stop racist you must start with most racist, no? https://www.theguardian.com/music/2020/mar/18/daryl-davis-bl...

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#355

Post by inglor_cz »

BiteCode_dev wrote: post #277
yerwhat01010 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks. > As long as you express something in a civil way, you should be able to do it without repercussion. To get back the original topic of the thread: an increasing problem in our workplaces is that lots of people don't think this way. And maybe I'm wrong, but the impression I get is that those people are overwhemingly of a particular political persuasion. It's not even "left wing" but a specific type of ultra-le…

I agree, and this is kinda new but to be expected. For a long time some minorities were particularly silenced by our societal systems. If you were a foss advocate, vegan, ecologist, feminist, LGBT aware, what have you, in the 90', you were ridiculed and you didn't have a voice. Now the table have turned, and the pendulum is balancing to the other extreme: those who were frustrated 20 years ago now created an anger cu…

Are you sure that the ones who were particularly silenced are now particularly angry?

I would say that a lot of unscrupulous individuals just used the momentum to give free rein to their toxicity or bad ideas. A lot of the young activists even do not personally remember the old bad times, so they are getting angry on behalf of historical events.

(The same development was typical for 19th and 20th century nationalisms - "they" caused a historical wrong to "us" in 1740, "we" must have a revenge. Thus all the building of Greater X countries. It turned to be a very bad principle with a huge body count.)

The swing of the pendulum is possible. For example, the immigration and Islam debate in Europe swung a lot towards far right positions since the 2015 migration wave. Few parties openly advocate for a permissive border regime anymore; even those that are "suspect" of harboring such sentiments try to bury them under other topics, such as the German Greens.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#356

Post by whywhywhywhy »

If you live in the uk you’ll realize the only place you’ll probably hear honest viewpoints aired in public is small village pubs.

The only place I’ve heard people vocally support Brexit or say anything other than support for the Labour party is when visiting relatives and going to the pub while there. I’ve never met a single supporter of Brexit or Tories outside of that.

What you generally hear on the street, in media and in the workplace clearly isn’t reflected in the voting booth.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#357

Post by inglor_cz »

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.

By far the easiest way how to "operate" is to avoid bad neighborhoods and police them only very lightly, leaving a power vacuum for the local gangs to step in. Criminal-on-criminal kills do not elicit as much public response.

Of course, the result is what the French call "lost territories of the Republic".

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#358

Post by eyko »

wpietri wrote: post #13

Funny that they don't mention what "certain, commonplace views" people "stay silent" about. That might put a different spin on things. As I mentioned [1] about the Basecamp debacle, you can't get full "viewpoint diversity" and full "identity diversity" because some viewpoints are hostile to some identities. Given our society's long history of those viewpoints being endemic, and given the slow movement away from ident…

> you can't get full "viewpoint diversity" and full "identity diversity" because some viewpoints are hostile to some identities.

I've heard variations of this idea and I personally disagree. Yes, some ideas are hostile to some identities, including mine (black), but hostility we can live with.

It's disheartening to see society devolve to a state where being offensive is considered being harmful. If you believe that, then you'll likely also believe that "hate speech is violence", or that words can be "harmful" (yes, they can, but not in a literal sense). It's unlikely that you can have viewpoint diversity in an environment where people believe that someone's opinion has the potential to cause actual harm. I'm not talking about someone inciting violence against individuals or groups based on their identity, beliefs, etc.

When I've been called the n-word, it's hurt my feelings and offended me, amongst other things to unpack, but it would be wrong to equate that with violence, independent of what anyone's opinion on the matter might be. So yes, I can definitely speak and have spoken to people who hold racist views (I mean actual neonazis, not conservatives) and we've agreed to disagree and we've had actual interesting conversations (at least, interesting to me, because I'm interested in understanding how they think, where the hate comes from, how it was learnt, etc). They get disrespectful, they insult, we disagree, etc. It's disappointing that people would think that I, because of the colour of my skin, am unable to hold -- never mind being interested in -- hearing these fringe points of views and opinions that can be offensive. That my personality is somehow override by my identity, as if it were some sort of basic instinct. I don't understand how you otherwise intelligent people can make such assumptions about "some identities" and not see the irony in that.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#359

Post by thrwyoilarticle »

Why on Earth would I feel comfortable 'bringing my whole self to work'? I don't want my colleagues to know about my hobbies, I don't want them to know about my personal life. I certainly don't want them to know my views on big-tech monopolisation, taxation, and intellectual property law. Choosing to present this as a bad point is doing it to create a springboard into the real point, complaining about other's politics. Which Hacker News is gladly leaping from.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#360

Post by twic »

krapp wrote: post #325
twic wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. For example, if the government allows its critics to speak freely, but then puts them in prison [1], is that free speech? No. So because of a consequence, speech is not free. If someone says they hate you and want to kill your family, and you avoid them as a result, is that free sp…

> Freedom from speech can only mean freedom from consequences, but virtually nobody thinks all speech should be free from all consequences. Then people should stop stating the former as an argument, because "all speech should be free from all consequences" is what it means.

That's not what they mean by it. It might be what you understand by it. It's not meaningful (!) to talk about what it means in an absolute sense.
Post reply on HN