New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#471

Post by msg3 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

twic wrote: post #275

msg3 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. 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? To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about the…

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…

> It's meaningless to be for or against free speech in some binary sense. What you can have is an opinion about the mapping from speech to consequences. You might think that speech should map to lighter consequences than it does at the moment across all speech, or to heavier consequences, for for some kinds of speech to be lighter and some heavier.

I think this is a very good way of putting things. However, when it comes to answering the question, there's two ways of thinking about it -- how do I map other's speech to consequences with my actions (i.e morally) and how does the government map speech to consequences (i.e legally). I think only this second way of thinking is where the "right to free speech" comes in.

The view that I'm advocating is that I want the government to support a relatively strong version of free speech (i.e you should be able to say what you want without fear of being persecuted by the government, bar a few exceptions), but my personal map of speech to consequences is for me to decide. This means, for example, that I may choose to stop supporting a particular business because of something one of their employees have said, and may even shout about it on Twitter, but doing so wouldn't be an infringement of their right to free speech (it may be morally questionable).

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#472

Post by Loughla » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:42 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #464

Loughla wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Please explain. Are the first sentence and the second sentence connected? If so, I am lost.

It's hard to answer because I'm not sure what you're asking, or why you are confused. The first and second sentence are describing libertarians' understanding of freedom as a value, and how this connects with "preserving existing values" to use GP's phrasing. It's quite wrong to say that sexual orientation "was not part of our culture in the past", as GP contends (unless you mean a quite remote past). If anything, it…

So, maybe I'm overthinking. Those two sentences read as if personal liberty is important, but LGBT marriage somehow impact others' personal freedoms. This is based on my knowledge that conservatives tend to be anti-lgbt marriage rights.

Maybe it's the grouping of conservatives and libertarians together. Maybe that's where my head gets lost.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#473

Post by NullPrefix » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:43 PM UTC

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #163

zorpner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't be neutral on a moving train. If you're not fighting against it, you're for it.

So I take it you support the Uighur genocide in China, the Maduro regime in Venezuela, the current covid crisis in India, the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, and the persecution of the Rohingya in Myanmar? Or are you doing something to actively fight against them?

These are too easy. Could we come up with conflicts where both sides are somewhat equal in power and both have a rightful claim?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#474

Post by nec4b » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:45 PM UTC

youngtaff wrote: post #381

nec4b wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you be more specific, maybe link to some examples?

Search Google for the Right to Protest legislation Go read the stories about JKRowling and others view on trans people, and the editorials about it

> Search Google for the Right to Protest legislation

There is nothing in there as far as i can see specifically targeting leftist protestors, it seem to be written for any kind of protests, even non political. Are only leftist protests in the UK noisy, violent and disruptive?

>Go read the stories about JKRowling and others view on trans people, and the editorials about it

As far as I know she considers herself a feminist and a liberal and has actively supported feminist causes. I don't know what she has to do with the conservatives and I don't know which rights she is taking away from trans people or how can she even do that.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#475

Post by zxzax » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

dbrueck wrote: post #413

tstrimple wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. It's not hyperbole or an exaggeration. We did have a rally with a bunch of white nationalists exercising their "free speech" to chant "The Jews will not replace us" and they ended up murdering someone there. We had a National Security Advisor to the President of the United States promoting replacement theory. There a…

Applying those labels to people who are objectively and overtly acting that way is not the problem. The problem is that way too often people are assuming it's there. It's a presumption of intent, "racism is one possible explanation for your viewpoint, therefore I somehow /just know/ that you are a racist person". Example: every recent white-cop-shot-a-black-person incident in the U.S. Not only is there widespread ass…

>Not only is there widespread assumption of racism being the motivation (despite little or no evidence of that)

It's hard to say what all the issues of individual motivation are in every case, but there is evidence that racism plays a factor. [0] It may not be because of overt racism, the officers involved don't have to attend klan rallies for other racially biased policies like redlining to have a broad effect on policing.

>Want to discuss the practical benefits of being cooperative during a police encounter?

The reason you're getting dismissed here is because this is missing the point. People in a state of confusion or crisis sometimes don't have the option of being cooperative with the police. That shouldn't be cause to get you shot and killed by a police officer inside your own house with no due process, which currently you have an increased risk of that happening to you if you're of a certain race.

[0] https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#476

Post by msg3 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #290

msg3 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. 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? To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about the…

> 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…

> So is it OK if a mob (not a legal or govermnet entity) stomped on you and beat you to a bloody pulp?

No - legally and morally, this is not OK.

> If a church (not a legal entity) asked its members to spit on your face and abuse you on the internet?

Morally, I'd say this was wrong, but legally, I think they would be within their rights. But equally, if I were to respond by encouraging my friends to protest outside the church, I wouldn't be violating their right to freedom of speech.

> If you were immediately fired?

This would depend on the country and my contract, but I'd hope that immediate dismissal would be a violation of my labour rights - not my right to free speech.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#477

Post by zpeti » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

thrwyoilarticle wrote: post #362

textgel wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which rights are they curtailing and how are they doing it?

Right to Protest: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/police-crime-sent... We will no longer be allowed to exceed a certain noise level with protests. This is done at the same time that the government annouces a 'War on Woke'. I'd laugh at how blatant the hypocrisy is but having my civil rights eroded spoils the punchline.

I think you'll find most grassroots conservatives agree with you on this. And so do most right wing commentators. It is only the government that is pushing this and it's crazy.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#478

Post by krageon » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:46 PM UTC

tolbish wrote: post #155

ramphastidae wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is normal. If you are an IC or middle manager you are there to execute (do what your boss says). Defining process and culture is not your job. Whether your process is better or not is besides the point. Fighting this will only lead to political pain.

Would you say it is also your job to not question things like diversity initiatives?

Yes, if you want to keep your job then you don't question your employers' politics. If you're annoying to your manager (or their manager, etc), they will fabricate reasons to fire you. It might take a while (in countries with employee protection), but they'll get there.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#479

Post by pasabagi » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

hilbert42 wrote: post #314

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…

"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…

As a sort of counterpoint, I think it might be worth it to watch a classic of the 'free debate' genre, Buckley vs Baldwin[1], that happened in the sixties in Cambridge. It pitted a black civil rights activist against the young Buckley, later a stalwart of American conservatism.

I don't know if it's my bias speaking, but I felt that in the debate, Buckley comes across as a bully, with very little argumentative meat, who doesn't really respond to Baldwin's points. For what its worth, I didn't really like Baldwin's delivery either, but at least I felt there were substantive points there that were worth addressing.

In a way, this is probably the best one can hope for when you stage this kind of event - Buckley is, at least, well educated, but I can't help but think the debate might have been far more interesting if it was Baldwin vs Malcolm X - because ultimately the problem with the Buckleys of the world is that they defend institutions that were not built on ideals, but rather economics, and as such the defenses themselves are generally sophistic and without anything really interesting in them.

If I was a student, I would probably agitate to exclude a Buckley, and instead reach for a Malcolm, and I expect somebody would accuse me of being anti-free-speech, since the debate that would result would no longer span a societal divide, and both parties in the debate would be on 'one side' of the broader social issue. However, from an intellectual standpoint, it just sometimes is the case that interesting positions aren't evenly distributed across the terrain of popular feeling and political rhetoric, and a lot of people are simply defending things that are convenient or traditional but have no moral basis. So inviting those people is a waste of time - they're just (at best) going to come up with clever excuses for whatever already exists, or whatever they would want regardless.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Tek9h3a5wQ

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#480

Post by tstrimple » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:48 PM UTC

dbrueck wrote: post #413

tstrimple wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. It's not hyperbole or an exaggeration. We did have a rally with a bunch of white nationalists exercising their "free speech" to chant "The Jews will not replace us" and they ended up murdering someone there. We had a National Security Advisor to the President of the United States promoting replacement theory. There a…

Applying those labels to people who are objectively and overtly acting that way is not the problem. The problem is that way too often people are assuming it's there. It's a presumption of intent, "racism is one possible explanation for your viewpoint, therefore I somehow /just know/ that you are a racist person". Example: every recent white-cop-shot-a-black-person incident in the U.S. Not only is there widespread ass…

I think you're missing the point w.r.t. BLM and racist policing. The assumption isn't racism. The statistical evidence says racism. And the argument was never that all of these white cops are independently racist in their heart of hearts. It's that they participate in and support a system with explicitly racist outcomes. There is simply no question that the criminal justice system in the US has racist outcomes.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09637214187639...