191–200 of 368 posts
I didn't expect to agree with Facebook corporate but here I am. It's one thing to privately disagree with a coworker about their action or lack thereof with respect to a contemporary event. But to drag it into a public setting is a severe violation of boundaries and borderline harassment. It's a huge liability risk to FB -- to scold your colleagues in public for their desire to separate the political from the profess…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm starting a new job soon and I'm trying to figure out how I'll handle these "silence is complicit" characters. My personal policy is to not discuss political/social issues at work.
If you think that it's not true (that silence is not complicit), then shouldn't you attempt to explain that?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the Recoil project were contributing to racism in the US, I think we all agree that would be a problem.
Connecting facial recognition software and racism seems to be earning you downvotes here. While racism is the hot button topic right now, widespread governmental and corporate (or indeed, private) use of facial recognition software is problematic for many reasons. Erosion of privacy, sexual and non-sexual harassment and stalking, racial profiling, gender profiling, profiling for membership of any other kind of group,…
And as you note it can also be used for reducing privacy at scale in a way that humans can't normally do on their own, for example personally identifying thousands of people in a crowd at a sporting event or political rally.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They don't have the numbers to impose the authoritarianism they seek (to fully remake things in the way they see fit), so the rampant threats and intimidation are meant to force joining. The best way to accomplish that, is to threaten a person's livelihood, which threatens their ability to exist. They started by just doing social ostracising, social threats of exclusion, and now they've moved on to targeting liveliho…
> “The malignant dictatorship of social media rage in the US is becoming insufferable. It's probably going to require government regulation to stop it.” you know you can just not tune in, right? it’s not coercive in any way, unlike said dictatorship or government regulation. amplification of voice is not a civil right.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's not mob rule, that's completely and absolutely how the legal US government operates. Overturning the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, which is no trivial task. Mob rule is entirely different: it refers to rule imposed from outside the law, possibly by a large group. Also, the "fewer votes" really only applies to the presidency, not the senate, house, or governors.
Maybe the mob is trying to rule because it finds the US government illegitimate because they're majority isn't being represented in the government. In order for Democrats to win the House they have to get more votes than 50%. Democrats received millions of more votes for Senate but don't control that chamber. Democrats received more votes for the Presidency twice this century and have been denied the power of that br…
I think a key phrase here is "he was dismissed for publicly challenging a colleague’s silence". In other words, he publicly harassed a colleague who (for what could be any number of perfectly valid reasons) preferred not to publicly state their beliefs. That would seem to me to be an eminently reasonable reason to fire someone. If you go around publicly harassing your colleagues to publicly state their political opin…
Yep. This guy is the textbook definition of toxic. There is nothing worse than people who want to inflict their own opinion on others. Yeah you can think of Trumps tweets what you want, censorship is a big thing too you know... The problem is not Trumps tweets, its that 40% of Americans are supporting Trump that should worry us. But then again, you can't inflict your own opinion on others. The only way to do somethin…
The only way? How about reconsidering your own position and offering people something they would like better?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
He decides because he believes something strongly it permits him to publicly attack someone he works with... Imagine having to deal with this guy in a team when he has a strong opinion on something the team disagrees with ...
Agree. It's endemic of the political and cultural climate we're in right now, where mob rule is becoming the status quo. Personal politics should be just that, personal.
Politics is intensely personal. It's not so much about conflicting ideas, but rather loudly delineating social groups and whose camp you're in.
Pushing beliefs to simplistic extremes and demanding declarations of beliefs is an efficient way to make clear where yourself and others stand socially. Truth has little to do with it.
Politics seems "stupid" because we're putting the cart before the horse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you had any suggestion for the website of an open source project, wouldn't you discuss that publicly? I don't think you would privately contact the single person who is in control of the project's website, at least not initially.
No, you contact the website admin and discuss the suggestion in the communication medium of their preference. After all, you are making the request to them. Not the other way around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That depends on if you are a platform or a publisher.
"I disagree with what this platform I'm working on allows," is a valid statement an employee can bring up and unavoidably political when in reference to political speech or something that is being used to some political end. A section of some arbitrary law from the 90's doesn't define what an employee can be concerned about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's certainly not the case. The electoral college was designed such that each state's legislature chooses how to attribute their electoral college votes. Many states in the first few presidential elections just had their state legislatures assign the votes. But still, I find it difficult to believe that the people who designed the electoral college would think it's okay that we held a national election, we got to…
As I understand it, many of the founding fathers explicitly feared that general populace would vote poorly and wanted people who were educated and had access to sufficient information to make a decision to do so on their behalf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._68
basically they wanted smart people amenable to debate and not be corrupted by a foreign nation to pick a president that doesn't have the nation's best interest at heart. or a vile person.
considering they do not do that anymore and vote based on popular vote per state it's a vestigial tail of our democracy. also, considering they were supposed to not cap the number of house of representative members and the delegates were based on this number also means that it's corrupted even more so than it was.