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

I don’t know what to do, you guys

fredrikdeboer.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 216 posts

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#121

Post by mrxd »

beerbajay wrote: post #66

The Vox article[1] by Amanda Taub is substantially better than either the deBoer's or Chait's articles (an article, by the way, that deBoer seems to entirely miss the point of) in that it correctly identifies the term "political correctness" as _a thing people only ever complain about_; it's not a thing that "the left" wants. > people pushed out and marginalized in left-wing circles because > they didn’t use the prop…

> This definitely happens, but not as some sort of organized strategy by "the left".

That's not true. It absolutely is an organized strategy by the left.

Anti-oppression activism is founded on social constructionist theories. These claim that bigotry and prejudice are subtly reproduced in society through language. So activists are scrupulous in cleansing their speech of any hint of prejudiced beliefs, no matter how minor, because they believe that if they can accomplish that, prejudice itself will disappear.

But people who aren't activists are also reproducing prejudice through their speech, so the problem becomes how can you get all of them to stop doing that too. The answer is to make it morally unacceptable. Minor phrases like "man up" turn into huge ethical lapses that are worthy of censure and shaming.

Not using those phrases become matters of empathy and not being an asshole towards unknown persons who are offended. But really, no one is offended, it's just a tactic for redefining linguistic norms.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#122

Post by yummyfajitas »

gone35 wrote: post #105
yummyfajitas wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, right wing politics seem to be about replacing the current social order. Currently academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents. This is the status quo. Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers, business leaders and those who embody traditional christian values. That…

"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents ." [Emphasis added] Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?

Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting.

On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes.

Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#123

Post by girvo »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
stolio wrote: post #12

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc. And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and true party lines. One day I said I thought it was wrong that Brandon Eich was forced out of Mozilla, I said I thought it was wrong the way he was treated. Immediately the decade spent arguing for gay rights and marriage equality disappeared and I became a bigot,…

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

Crucifying someone publicly and professionally for their political views when their job has little to do with them just doesn't sit right for me, even if I find his views on gay marriage deplorable.

We used to fire people from their jobs (and worse) because they were gay. What happened to Brendan isn't too different, and the result is the same: removing someone from their job because of something that has little to do with their ability to do it...

Edit: they're not exactly the same, of course. I just find their too close for comfort. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to death your right to say it"? When did the side of the political spectrum I agree with become okay with thoughtcrime and censorship? Brendan's case is slightly less sympathetic for me than others, but it's an issue I've seen time and time again, and it's what the OP is talking about.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#124

Post by nostrademons »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #110
stolio wrote: post #12

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc. And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and true party lines. One day I said I thought it was wrong that Brandon Eich was forced out of Mozilla, I said I thought it was wrong the way he was treated. Immediately the decade spent arguing for gay rights and marriage equality disappeared and I became a bigot,…

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

You can turn this argument around too, though.

Imagine that you own a bus company in the South in the 1950s. You personally believe that blacks should have every right that whites have, including the ability to sit up front. However, if you passed that policy on your busses, all your white ridership would refuse to buy tickets. Your bus drivers would quit. Your shareholders would fire you. And it's all for naught anyway, because your customers would go to competing bus lines with bigoted owners who hire all your employees away. So you make blacks go to the back of the bus, just like everyone else.

Does this mean Rosa Parks was incredibly naive?

On a pragmatic level, you're right - companies are under constraints imposed by their stakeholders. But if you're talking moral philosophy or what is right, it's not enough to make arguments based on what everybody else believes. You need to be able to come up with some distinction that holds even if you swap white to black to gay. Are people entitled to their jobs, regardless of their race? Are they entitled to their views? Are they entitled to make political contributions? What are the basic rights that we choose to protect for our citizenry, regardless of the specific form that their expression takes?

Part of what made the Brendan Eich issue so problematic for a lot of people is that upholding his right to hold his own personal and political views is not inherently contradictory with upholding the rights of gay Mozilla employees & community members to have a safe working environment. He had publicly promised to uphold Mozilla's existing non-discriminatory and LGBT-friendly policies, and to prevent his personal views from interfering with his duties at Mozilla.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#125

Post by lern_too_spel »

girvo wrote: post #123
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

Crucifying someone publicly and professionally for their political views when their job has little to do with them just doesn't sit right for me, even if I find his views on gay marriage deplorable. We used to fire people from their jobs (and worse) because they were gay. What happened to Brendan isn't too different, and the result is the same: removing someone from their job because of something that has little to d…

Reread my post. Eich had to step down precisely because of his inability to do the job.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#126

Post by girvo »

efnx wrote: post #83
Kalium wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc? You'd be surprised. I left the Bay for a handful of years, and when I came back half of my friends had become political radicals. There is no lack of people who will react badly if you don't share their views in detail.

This goes in all directions.

It does. But that's one of the things I loved about small-l liberals, when I was younger this focus on "thoughtcrime" wasn't there. Now we are not that much better in this regard than those we are opposed to. Horseshoe theory I guess.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#127

Post by javajosh »

electronvolt wrote: post #91
javajosh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.

Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way? I have mixed feelings over the way he was treated, but your argument actually seems the opposite of nuanced: the blanket claim that someone should never be fired for their political views (particularly, from a public position where their politics could have an effect on the company they represent both on internal culture and…

>Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way?

Yep. Although that would be a much higher "this won't affect his job performance" bar than Eich's anti-gay marriage stance, which passed that bar because his was a purely religious stance and pretty clearly didn't imply personal or professional animosity toward homosexuals (amidst all the flak I never read a single anecdote about him mistreating a gay person, and you'd be damn sure that would have surfaced).

The KKK is a hate group, and so he'd have to demonstrate somehow that he was no longer personally or professionally hateful. That would only be possible if someone was truly reformed, a la Edward Norton in American History X.

...seems the opposite of nuanced...

The nuance is that humans are not built to defend the rights of their enemies, but that is precisely what consistency demands, what I did, and am doing now.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#128

Post by lern_too_spel »

nostrademons wrote: post #124
lern_too_spel wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your ti…

You can turn this argument around too, though. Imagine that you own a bus company in the South in the 1950s. You personally believe that blacks should have every right that whites have, including the ability to sit up front. However, if you passed that policy on your busses, all your white ridership would refuse to buy tickets. Your bus drivers would quit. Your shareholders would fire you. And it's all for naught any…

As an employee of a company, you are not entitled to take down the company for your views. You are entitled to your views, but not to that job.

In your scenario, Rosa Parks is not naïve. She would be naïve if she assumed she were entitled to run the bus company. By fixing all bus companies from the outside, she was shrewd (or in her telling, simply too tired to comply).

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#129

Post by Dylan16807 »

electronvolt wrote: post #91
javajosh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.

Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way? I have mixed feelings over the way he was treated, but your argument actually seems the opposite of nuanced: the blanket claim that someone should never be fired for their political views (particularly, from a public position where their politics could have an effect on the company they represent both on internal culture and…

That's a hard question. Not so much because of anything related to politics, but because I get stuck thinking about actual murders committed by the KKK.

If instead you asked about something like a US neo-nazi group I would be much more tolerant of people giving money to a terrible group like that in a way completely unrelated to their job.

The reason the situation is tricky, I think, is because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life. Even though I can't think of any reason they should. I can't think of any major downsides from letting people have work and personal life be separate.

Re: I don’t know what to do, you guys

#130

Post by javajosh »

solipsism wrote: post #59
javajosh wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.

It sounds like you're saying yours is the nuanced position and anyone disagreeing with you does so out of inability to grasp the nuance. Is that how you really feel?

Nope. I honestly don't think there is disagreement, because I don't think many people understood my position. They made up their mind Eich was evil, so when I said anything in support of him, I became evil. That is inability to grasp nuance.
Post reply on HN