201–210 of 276 posts
Well they left all the juicy parts out Context: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/15/22232766/github-employees... I can’t believe people talk like this on a work public channel.
Independent from the events: The way Github employees communicate with each other makes me kind of uncomfortable. In the companies I've worked here in Europe, such discussions just would not happen in a cooperate chat room.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you heard of "dead baby jokes"? What's the difference between 100 dead babies and a Ferrari? I don't keep a Ferrari in my garage. Here's a sampling. https://thoughtcatalog.com/clint-conway/2016/08/50-of-the-fu... Anyway, the thing that makes it funny is how absurd it is that the joke-teller would be an enthusiastic baby-murderer, -torturer, and/or -cannibal, depending on the joke (plus general surprise and shock…
> Have you heard of "dead baby jokes"? Not since maybe middle school? I'm not sure what to say. If an adult made a joke like this -- especially in a workplace -- I would assume they have some sort of developmental disorder. I understand that assumption might be wrong and that in any case I'm not qualified to make a determination, but... I've literally never met a normal and functioning adult who laughs at jokes like…
It's a whole genre of humor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that standard fare for workplaces everywhere in the world now? Not that I like it much, but it seems to be the normal approach.
I work at a company going hard on diversity and inclusion and they haven't gone even a baby step towards asking us to empathize with the grievances of people who feel fascism is the only thing that can help them. Empathy isn't the same as tolerance, but I'd expect they'd either know the optics would be terrible or don't see the difference themselves.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> vs. words that concisely warn colleagues that something is going beyond political ideology and towards a pattern of racially-motivated behavior that places people in grave danger, we haven't learned our lessons from history. Don't the more radical leftist circles fit exactly this description, except that they just paint a different racial group as the enemy?
What "racial group" do "radical leftist circles" paint as the enemy, pray tell? And how does one bad thing justify another bad thing?
I don't believe violence should be justified, one way or another.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A good leader is supposed to take responsibility for the actions taken by his or her team. Failure of a unit implies failure of the leadership. In my view, the right outcome happened here.
> A good leader is supposed to take responsibility for the actions taken by his or her team. Failure of a unit implies failure of the leadership. I've heard the same "leadership principles seppuku" and sure, this would be consistent with that ethos. (In my experience, that kind of buck-stops-here ownership happens less often than not.) But this isn't the part of your comment I want to argue. > In my view, the right o…
Because really, that would put the company not just at risk of what is going on now, but also at risk of very expensive lawsuits.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My best attempt at equivelent from the right would be "stay safe, the Thugs are rioting" during a BLM protest. If that doesn't seem fair and feels condescending to you, then you can probably imagine how some on the right feel.
You really went for "thug"? Instead of, say, the equivalent far-left blood-soaked ideology of communism? I think it's clear how you feel about BLM.
I personally consider both "keep safe, there's communists about" and "keep safe, there's trump supporters about" to be political statements that may be against company policies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn’t matter if there’s still some good water in the pool after there’s so much urine in it that it smells like urine and has turned yellow. People who aren’t of a militaristic, racist, fascist, or seditious bent are still welcome in other fora like Twitter and Facebook.
> People who aren’t of a militaristic, racist, fascist, or seditious bent are still welcome in other fora like Twitter and Facebook. Problem is that such people are mostly welcome to those sites as long as they belong to the right groups. If you rant about women or left leaning people etc on reddit like women rant about men or left leaning people rant about right leaning people then you'll likely get banned. So the l…
The people who want to rant hatmlessly without brigading other subs and without harrasing users of other subs are still there.
In HN, I've been seeing way more comments supporting the "freedom of speech" for those who stormed the Capitol, compared to other sites. (That might tell more about what sites I visit, but whatever.) So far I chalked it up to the strong libertarian bent of an average HN user - some people really believe in absolute freedom of speech. While I don't necessarily agree, I can live with that. ...And then I see multiple co…
I won’t defend you creating a discriminative or hostile atmosphere at work, partly because I just don’t want to deal with political topics at work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you read the full sentence in the article, you will note that it continues by saying that the label is "slandering." Something has to be untrue for it to be slander. Therefore, by saying that labeling people in the crowd as Nazis is slander, it denies that there were Nazis in the crowd.
Something has to be defamatory and expressed orally for it to be slander. Apparently, all the labeling should have been around libel. I am having trouble adjusting to a reality in which I am the first to express this quibble. https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-dif...