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

151–160 of 297 posts

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

#151

Post by jstanley »

landemva wrote: post #137
jstanley wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 Firstly, you can't be upping sticks and moving every time a law you don't like is created (or a law you like is repealed).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.

I don't have a suggestion, but it seems to me that "just move if you don't like it" is not obviously a better option than "just try to get it changed if you don't like it".

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

#152

Post by tomc1985 »

UkrainianJew wrote: post #144
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…

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

If only this message was spread more widely!

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

#153

Post by Thorrez »

xg15 wrote: post #114

I'm pretty surprised how many people in this thread are suddenly in favour of censorship.

I think there's a bit of a difference between rules of what I can say in internal communication channels at work vs rules of what I can say in general.

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

#154

Post by thrown_22 »

rayiner wrote: post #131
thrown_22 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 marria…

>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.

That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. Along with cases on gay marriage, anal sex and contraceptives.

A year ago I made the case that if we can force people to divulge their vaccination status then we can force people to divulge their sexual history. If a new disease showed up we could well ask if they had anal sex and lock them up in quarantine if they had.

With the current outbreak of monkeypox and the current court that isn't a thought experiment any more.

Liberals have spent the last decade hacking away at the right to privacy as hard as they could, the vaccine mandates being only the latest and greatest attack on personal freedoms from the party which supposedly stood for individual rights. This is not rocket science. Anyone could have seen this coming, but we were too busy owning the conservitards to notice that we were destroying the bedrock of the last 50 years of social progress.

Well here we are.

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

#155

Post by tomc1985 »

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…

You are right in that I don't do rallies. But anger at the situation led me to join this one, where I was promptly reminded why I find political types so repulsive.

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

#156

Post by UkrainianJew »

thr0wawayf00 wrote: post #52
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…

I agree. At the same time, I think we're sadly coming to terms with the reality that our voices don't matter in the political arena anymore. If anything, I think social media has created the illusion that being loud and angry online is an effective replacement for actual strikes, protests, etc. We can tweet angrily all day long, but those in power are going to continue doing what they do because they know we're just…

>We can tweet angrily all day long, but those in power are going to continue doing what they do because they know we're just going to tweet about it and that just doesn't matter.

Oh, those in power are actively manipulating you to be upset about things that do not interfere with their profits. Somehow, nobody is protesting against unviability of single-income households, lack of retirement savings, part-time employment/independent contractor bullshit used to skirt regulations, etc. It's always Worker Alice against Worker Bob and never Workers against the Corporation.

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

#157

Post by gedy »

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.

I think the point is it's counterproductive when people run with their emotions. E.g. interrupting some local Catholic mass may feel like a good vent, but it hardens people against you even further and drives reactions at the polls which is the only thing that matters.

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

#158

Post by panaceaeaea »

zer01 wrote: post #130
collegeburner wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, w…

> Is it "cancel culture" to say "we don't want nazis to work here"?

I find people throwing around the word "nazi" in this way incredibly offensive. Every time I hear a non-Jewish person throw this word around as a political accusation it makes me sick to my stomach

and why does it make me sick to my stomach? Because it shows how people have become so detached from the atrocities of the 20th century that they have the audacity to throw around that word and use it as a political tool. Please find a different word to describe people you disagree with

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

#159

Post by alisonkisk »

Flankk wrote: post #142
killdozer wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No post body was provided.

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

#160

Post by alisonkisk »

Flankk wrote: post #34
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'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.

No post body was provided.
Post reply on HN