TBH, talking politics at work anywhere is a terrible idea.
FYI: Meta doesn't use email much, 99% of internal comms is done within the walls of Workplace. I'm curious if it has a CLI or an API.
Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
191–200 of 297 posts
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#192Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Conservatives didn't spend anything close to all of their political capital, rather they have more now than they ever had, and getting rid of Roe has always been a pretext to banning abortions entirely. This isn't merely a political issue for them, it's religious and existential. Conservatives aren't just going to stop at Roe on principle, even though they have a lock on the Supreme Court. Clarence Thomas suggested t…
> Clarence Thomas suggested they consider rolling back contraceptive rights and gay marriage as well.
No, he flat out stated that all substantive due process precedent, including but not limited to the cases establishing the right to same sex marriage, marital contraception, and freedom against sodomy laws, are “demonstrably erroneous” and that it is obligatory for the Court to “correct the error” that they represent.
Substantive due process, though, effects far more than the examples he pointed to, and he is very clear that he means the entire body needs to be reversed, not just those examples.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#193Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the place. Don't shit where you eat. When you have these discussions at work people are forced to listen to your view, not only are they not getting paid for that, their response will have consequences. Are you looking for coworkers to reaffirm your belief or an actual discussion? Because if it is the latter the Janet from accounting might feel strongly about capital punishment for women who abort, now shoul…
Where’s the force? Nobody is required to have lunch with me; nobody is required to respond to random off-topic messages on chat applications. We’re taking about the thing that each of us spends 1/3 of our weekdays doing. The majority of our waking hours. It’s one of the largest aspects of all our lives, and is fundamentally derived from the outcomes of very recent political battles over the roles of individual labore…
Everything has a place. Use personal chat systems and have lunch with people outside of work. I have been asked to participate in things I disagreed with when I joined a new company for example and I couldn't refuse because that might mess up my reputation before I could prove myself. I have also worked jobs where coworkers argued and talked about religion and racial things and I was not senior and I was new and I had no desire to participate in their discussion yet I had no choice but to sit in the same room with them and listen to deeply offending and hurtful things. I do not get paid to hear your opinions about trump or minorities or whatever.
Even after working at a place for years, it is very disheartening when people discuss bs that affects me personally yet if I even say anything it would be things that will offend them deeply.
Off work I could speak my mind and refuse to paricipate in offwork activities but during work that declined chat request might offend you or you might see it as not supporting you or your cause.
If I decline a request to chat about abortion for example, will you see it as a sign of my not supporting you? In that case it might affect how well you work with me? Then what? The person that has the upperhand in the power dynamic speaks and the other people agree?
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#194Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not the place. Don't shit where you eat. When you have these discussions at work people are forced to listen to your view, not only are they not getting paid for that, their response will have consequences. Are you looking for coworkers to reaffirm your belief or an actual discussion? Because if it is the latter the Janet from accounting might feel strongly about capital punishment for women who abort, now shoul…
As far i understood, this is about allowing or disallowing employees to discuss the ruling. Nobody is talking about forcing people to take part on the discussion or to pick a side —you always have the option not to participate on these things— so i'm not really getting where your point is coming from, sorry.
No you do not. Let'e bob goes on a rant about capital punishment against aborters or incarceration for gay people once that is also repealed. How will you feel as a pro choice person or a gay person? Will you not feel hurt in the slightest and will it not affect how you work and interact with bob?
People like you must have always been in positions of power and priviledge. I have been at the other end enduring all sorts of horrific remarks and being forced to keep quiet to save my career. Now I look back at those jobs and the first thing I always remeber is how horrible it felt people saying ignorant and hurtful things day in and day out and being forced to listen to that or disagree and not get my contract renewed, and affect other political power dynamics that can literally ruin my life.
So please sir/madam, don't shit where you eat. Not everyone appreciates the smell while they eat.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#195Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do not think that each get is ignoring the important parts of the other. I think they think that these important things are simply wrong. A foetus is "alive" since the conception. "Wrong" says the other side, it is alive when (something). Contraception and sex ed are key. "Wrong" says the other side, you can just be abstinent and learn as you go because this is natural. Ignoring would be simpler, because you could…
Why should people be forced into abstinence? Why are republicans trying to make contraceptives illegal?
I have no idea (I am French and we thankfully do not have this problem).
My point is that the adversaries do not ignore the important points of the other side. These are usually the important point for them as well, they are just exactly at the other side of the spectrum.
This is why there is no way for them to come to consensus as the differences of opinion are about these points.
It is not like someone, when hearing the arguments of the other side, would say "oh, I did not think about this because i thought it was important"
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#196Earlier quoted context omitted.
The core issue is 'Is a human obligated to use their body to keep another human alive' A thought experiment. You get too drunk and pass out in a bar. I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood. If you unhook yourself they will die. Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?
That really doesn't seem like the core issue to me. Once child is born parents have tons of obligations towards them, and severe neglect can cause a prison sentence. I'm not American, so forgive me for barging in, but it seems to me you have two core issues: First there is the debate over when a Fetus should be considered a person and receive the rights that come with it. Secondly there is a debate over states rights…
I don't believe it matters if the fetus is a person or not.
Should any random person A be forced to lose their bodily autonomy to keep random person B alive?
I think no. I shouldn't have to give you my kidney. Even if I can have it back in 9 months.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#197Earlier quoted context omitted.
The core issue is 'Is a human obligated to use their body to keep another human alive' A thought experiment. You get too drunk and pass out in a bar. I take you home a f hook you up to a person with failing kidneys so that you filter their blood. If you unhook yourself they will die. Should you go to prison for unhooking yourself?
Quoted post unavailable.
I agree with you? What's your point?
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#198The last thing this country needs is places where people can discuss opposing viewpoints on controversial subjects. Especially at a workplace where people have existing common ties.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#199Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
[flagged]
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#200Earlier quoted context omitted.
The irony is that if it wasn’t for intersectionality, there’s a good chance Democrats could have held their traditional ambivalent stance on immigration, and Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected and wouldn’t have gotten those Supreme Court picks. Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest, Black people…
>Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest This faction's support for Democrats is rapidly disintegrating, based on the massive shift to Trump seen in the Texas border counties in 2020. Like, 30 points' worth of movement.
Notably, whether Republican Myra Flores holds onto the 85% Hispanic House district she recently won in the special election, it’s notable that the Democrat she defeated was also pro life. Vicente Gonzales, who will run against her in November, is also pro life.