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

Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 297 posts

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#131

Post by rayiner »

thrown_22 wrote: post #115
Mezzie wrote: post #23

Probably 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 is no need to understand anything past the law for why Roe vs Wade was a terrible decision when it was made. The legal theory it was based on has only gotten shakier since then. Here's Ginsberg explaining why it was on life support 10 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pVnvBCzTyI In short: we do not have a right to privacy any more. That a majority of rights we took for granted rested on that implied r…

The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis.

Even Thomas doesn’t disagree that there are implied rights. His view is that they originate from the “privileges and immunities” clause, not the “due process clause.” But nobody disagrees, for example, that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution (although they disagree on what counts as marriage).

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#132

Post by landemva »

amatwl wrote: post #99
landemva wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Except there are already some House Republicans publicly discussing a nationwide ban on abortion - guaranteed it's going to be on the agenda if Republicans take back Congress (which is highly likely). Also, it's not exactly easy to move to another state.

Rs such as Mitt Romney are reliable friends of Democrat issues.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#133

Post by 55555 »

escape_goat wrote: post #96
collegeburner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right, I should be using my work environment to agitate for repealing all the ridiculous and unjust gun laws we have and the shitty bill congress just passed. It's more important that we win colleagues over to protecting our rights. Not that I will do this, but when I see people talk about things like this, they usually do not feel the same if I suggest what I might do. I think the abortion laws in my state ne…

The Supreme Court decision will affect people's work lives at Meta, and that is something that needs to be discussed. There are apparently states now where women lose rights just by visiting a doctor, where they can be criminally prosecuted for an abortion outside of the state if there is evidence that they had been pregnant at any point. Should Meta employees be required to continue living and working in those state…

Honestly I get that rights are important and worth fighting over, but from a practical perspective, if you want to have an abortion, what’s wrong with just ordering abortion pills online and taking them? That pretty much solves the problem, right? Just curious.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#134

Post by woodruffw »

tyrfing wrote: post #119
woodruffw wrote: post #44

The 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…

Harassment or discrimination over religious beliefs, which can include opinions on abortion, is illegal under federal law. Where is the line between arguing and a hostile work environment?

In my book? It becomes a hostile work environment once an aggrieved party seeks retribution or revenge for perceived harms.

It’s obviously not that simple, though: there are lots of opinions that are a priori incompatible with a functioning workplace, such as beliefs that fundamentally dehumanize one’s colleagues. In those instances, I’d argue that the hostile work environment begins the moment those beliefs are aired.

(And, to the best of my knowledge, no court has ever concluded that the particular derived beliefs of an individual are protected as an extension of their religious rights. Religious rights include things like being given reasonable accommodations for worship and lifestyle requirements; it doesn’t require your coworkers to placidly accept whatever positions you’ve extended from the larger religious doctrine.)

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#136

Post by rayiner »

amatwl wrote: post #99
landemva wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Except there are already some House Republicans publicly discussing a nationwide ban on abortion - guaranteed it's going to be on the agenda if Republicans take back Congress (which is highly likely). Also, it's not exactly easy to move to another state.

Social conservatives spent virtually all of their political capital on Roe and it still took them 50 years to get rid of a precedent that was not only completely lacking in foundation, but forced Georgia to allow elective abortions two months further into a pregnancy than France. And you think that banning abortion nationwide is “guaranteed” to “be on the agenda” the next go around?

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#137

Post by landemva »

jstanley wrote: post #116
landemva wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

> Whichever view you support, move to a State where you will be comfortable. This really doesn't scale. Firstly, you can't be upping sticks and moving every time a law you don't like is created (or a law you like is repealed). And secondly, you don't need to care about a lot of issues before you find that nowhere on Earth is satisfactory. Then what?

The problem with one king ruling all the lands is what you wrote - if you don't like it, too bad. I would like to learn your thoughts on what is better than the messy system of local control.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#138

Post by dumdumdumdum »

landemva wrote: post #87
endurance789xx wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!

Quoted post unavailable.

Yeah, don't like Jim Crow? Just move to a State where you'll be comfortable forehead. Maybe you are already there!

The biggest mistake Lincoln made was leaving the Supreme Court intact after Dred Scott. Should have razed that shit to the ground when he had the chance.

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#139

Post by zer01 »

in_cahoots wrote: post #51
pacarvalho wrote: post #2

Tricky. Politics/societal/economic/etc issues such as this one are very important to be discussed. However, companies are a place for work. Talking to co-workers can be quite fulfilling and exciting when conversing about engineering, marketing, or other work related subjects you are passionate about. However, anytime politics, etc are brought up I (for one) leave the conversation feeling in a worse state of mind than…

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.

This I think is where a lot of the "leave your politics at home" falls apart. People's identities are basically a collection of the things they believe in and advocate for.

People work much better when they're happy and can be themselves with like-minded individuals. Companies like Google realized this in the 90s and ensured that they proactively have what they need to be happy (feeding employees, paying for healthcare premiums, etc) to great success. You see this continue with things like this https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31871581 IMO.

It's really easy to say that you as a business care about gay rights in order to have gay employees come work for you, but if you then contribute political donations to a politician who sees gay people as an abomination you can't seriously be surprise when people go "hey what the fuck".

Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade

#140

Post by woodruffw »

thrown_22 wrote: post #126
woodruffw wrote: post #44

The 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.

It’s a testament to the relative lack of problems in my life that my single biggest current problem is scheduling time with my friends.

I think having serious conversations with my coworkers is a very good thing for all parties involved, especially when I don’t want them to eventually become friends. Opinions and beliefs are plainer that way.

Post reply on HN