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

141–150 of 297 posts

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

#141

Post by bavell »

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…

> states

Are there other states doing this or is it only Texas?

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

#142

Post by Flankk »

killdozer wrote: post #81
Flankk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

Emotions are feelings. You don't have control of them but you do have control over your actions and your speech. If we agree that policies should be rational, then we agree that emotions are non-productive here. The human rights you are talking about are not fundamental in any way, they are contrived. If the state does not protect human life, then nobody will. The issue is not as simple as you've made it out to be.

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

#143

Post by escape_goat »

55555 wrote: post #133
escape_goat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If anyone — say, the doctor who told you you were pregnant — has evidence that you were pregnant, you could be investigated and charged with a crime for suddenly not being pregnant. This has ALREADY happened to at least one woman who was simply suffering a natural miscarriage.

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

#144

Post by UkrainianJew »

tomc1985 wrote: post #97
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…

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…

In general, when somebody is advising you against discerning, untangling and questioning, chances are, you are being manipulated.

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

#145

Post by heywoodlh »

killdozer wrote: post #81
Flankk wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Quoted post unavailable.

> like we approach discussions around kubernetes

I've already deployed my CloudNative Political Belief System in a fault-tolerant EKS cluster with a fully implemented CI/CD pipeline.

> Yes i wish people would stop being so emotional about their rights being stripped from them

On a more serious note, I appreciate this sarcasm as my wife and I were devastated about this news because of how we feel it impacts us (we're done with having kids and the idea of getting pregnant again due to the rare chance of contraceptive failure is pretty scary for us). I feel like I am pretty sympathetic to the intention behind being both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and this decision to overturn Roe vs Wade still made me feel very upset.

As this sarcastic comment eludes to, I am sure that others are far more devastated by this (imagine if you were a pregnant person planning on getting an abortion in Texas right now). I definitely have been re-evaluating my lack of sensitivity when I have asked or expected others to be level-headed when something infringes on what they feel is important. It has been a paradigm shift for me to feel so impacted by this -- and I'm not even a woman. My reaction to Roe vs Wade being overturned has definitely has highlighted my privilege in my life.

I'm not saying the parent comment of asking for less emotion in politics is being insensitive -- I just have always held a similar perspective of "less emotion in politics would be better for everyone" and for me I think it was often coming from a place of privilege.

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

#146

Post by Thorrez »

JKCalhoun wrote: post #35
nso95 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arguing about it on Slack isn't going to fix any of it though

It's venting. It's bonding with coworkers who also feel their world is collapsing. Hard to focus on work, talk about the preso when, for example, people are storming our Capitol.

I don't think the venting will be beneficial if it ends up in a debate.

Talking about abortion will be more likely to stir up a debate than talking about the storming of the Capitol.

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

#147

Post by spoils19 »

stormcode wrote: post #63
yabatopia wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Venting doesn't work: https://slate.com/technology/2022/03/venting-makes-you-feel-... . HN discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=30601594 .

It sure works for me.

Did you even read the article? It doesn't work.

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

#148

Post by UkrainianJew »

labster wrote: post #128
tomc1985 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yep, and then you do an anti-vaccine-mandate rally in Canada, one idiot with a swastika shows up, and then media goes on for weeks how everyone opposing vaccine mandates is a Nazi.

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

#149

Post by escape_goat »

bavell wrote: post #141
escape_goat wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> states Are there other states doing this or is it only Texas?

IIRC there was similar language in 'trigger' laws in some other states but I don't have a link to a good overview site and so am just pluralizing on the strength of that recollection.

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

#150

Post by BrainInAJar »

landemva wrote: post #109
BrainInAJar wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, just abandon all your friends and family (and don't worry about them, they're on their own), whatever life you've got set up and just move! it's easy!

When the issue is controlled at the federal level, those disagreeing would need to move to a different country. Moving to a different State is easier.

A person who "disagrees" with a federally protected right can simply not exercise that right (don't get an abortion.)
Post reply on HN