Since Meta is a business and not a political forum this seems appropriate. However, it would be good if they help employees relocate to more sane states and/or offer financial assistance to fly those seeking abortions to states that aren't medieval leaning.
Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
121–130 of 297 posts
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies proudly proclaim that employees should bring their ‘whole selves’ to work. They sponsor resource groups for parents, women, minorities, gay/lesbian/trans, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, and vet employees. But when employees want to actually talk about the issues rather than watch ‘empowering’ motivational speakers, then bringing your whole self to work is suddenly a distraction. They can’t have it both ways.
>> Companies proudly proclaim that employees should bring their ‘whole selves’ to work. I have never encountered that with an employer. Is that a California thing?
It's a DEI thing.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#123Earlier quoted context omitted.
> If I had a private office and didn't have to block out background conversation with noise-cancelling headphones and loud music that would be fine, yeah. These sound like the kinds of employee privileges you’d like to negotiate for at work, ideally with multiple other coworkers backing you. The kind of thing that would ideally come from multiple discussions, some of which would ultimately boil down to your and your…
The union I was in most recently had dedicated time for discussing and voting on matters important to members, and scheduled negotiations between our chosen representatives and our employer. I preferred that to being distracted at work.
Me too; I also don’t like to be distracted.
And I mean this genuinely: it’s wonderful that you have a Union that you can use for those purposes. Most workers in the US, particularly tech workers, don’t. The fact that you do is a testament to the effectiveness of politics in the workplace.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#124Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…
There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. I've had my fill of both the screaming liberals and the dusty conservatives. Most of the complex issues deal with morality so it's probably all for naught. The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people. No point using empirical evidence when you don't believe in it to begin with.
> The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people
I don't believe this is true in western societies anymore. Even in the US, people who describe themselves as "very religious" or belong to a church are the minority.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#125The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…
Perhaps the point is that 2/3 of the people are mostly disconnected from the places where most intensive discussion about these topics is going on. But at the workplace, also these people are forced to be connected. It's probably these people (mostly moderates I would assume) who are the base force steering this.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#126The learned oblivion in this discussion is very disheartening: every person saying to “leave politics at home” should understand that our basic boundaries around personal and working time came from long and protracted political battles over the powers of our employers. Those battles were fought because people complained, loudly at their workplaces, and won their colleagues over. Abortion is not the labor movement, bu…
You sound like you have no friends and are replacing that lack with co-workers.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#127I think that we are missing the point here. Meta is banning open discussion on their internal platform. It does not mean that you can't chat about it with a co-worker that also happens to be your friend. I think it's reasonable. It has nothing to do with not getting people distracted, but all to do with having one less problem to deal with.
Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint. Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.
No this is the most neutral position they could possibly take. I'm not sure where you're getting your logic from. I go to work to work, not argue politics. I suspect you and I are on the same side of this argument given this is a tech forum, but I don't to hear it at work. I want to hear it at a protest, over a beer, etc. I go to work to program no to project my politics, and I expect others to do the same. I don't want to discuss or hear about your politics, religion, sexual preferences, kids, or anything else at work and I promise you I won't subject you to mine.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#128Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but because of the dumpster fire that intra-political discussions have turned into. Some people feel like discussing this in anything other than emotional terms is inappropriate, some people feel like we need to discuss the legal theory and history behind what happened…
I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants…
I guess you haven’t been to many rallies or protests. People always show up with unrelated issues, and there’s not much you can do about it as an organizer. I helped to organize a protest asking Trump to release his taxes, and people showed up with signs to abolish ICE (immigration enforcement). I went to a rally to get out the vote, and the local congresswoman was drowned out by a woman who wanted her son freed from prison. Politicians will push whatever they think is advantageous to themselves (though the better ones will stay on topic).
Free speech is a wonderful thing, but there can be too much of a good thing. Learning when to shut up can be valuable too, one doesn’t offend people like the parent post.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#129Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's worth pointing out that states like Texas passed a law that allows Texas residents to sue anyone that aids a Texas resident with receiving an abortion.[0] So if I live in California and my friend from Texas comes out to stay with me while they undergo the procedure, I could be sued under Texas law even though I'm not a Texas resident. It's not as simple as just picking which state you want to live in. Also, pick…
Quoted post unavailable.
Read the article, they're very explicit about this. Lawsuits are a civil matter, not criminal. Texas is just giving their residents permission to sue anyone that helps a Texas resident get an abortion.
If you can't understand the basic concept that you can be sued in another state, there's nothing I can do to help you.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
Companies proudly proclaim that employees should bring their ‘whole selves’ to work. They sponsor resource groups for parents, women, minorities, gay/lesbian/trans, Christian/Muslim/Jewish, and vet employees. But when employees want to actually talk about the issues rather than watch ‘empowering’ motivational speakers, then bringing your whole self to work is suddenly a distraction. They can’t have it both ways.
Just as importantly they are very toxic to a set of political viewpoints. In some industries (O&G) that is liberal ones. In some industries (tech) that is conservative ones. In some industries (finance) that is most things outside centrist (Romney Republican, Manchin Democrat). When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so the…
> When the "activist" types push politics into workplaces they are not doing it so they can talk about what they feel. They are doing it so they can find the people who disagree and damage their careers.
This sounds like your position is that anyone who advocates for anything (esp. when it's directly impacting them, but unrelated to work) only has one singular goal of weeding out disagreement and getting rid of it, which I think is ridiculous.
Humans are social creatures and we largely shape our perspectives by iterating with new data and communication. People can be (and IMO largely are) advocates for things that are important to them, have opinions on things, and don't have a singular focus of destroying anyone with different viewpoints.
On the other side, all humans have their limits to cooperation. As you have social interactions with anyone your viewpoint of them change, and realistically if I find out something about a co-worker through discussion like they believe that the 2020 election was stolen because Trump told them so it does inevitably make me scrutinize this person harder. What if you found out that a co-worker thought black people were genetically inferior or that women don't deserve to vote? At that point it's hard to work with someone with such a fundamentally different view of the world.
Is it "cancel culture" to say "we don't want nazis to work here"?