Great decision.
When activism enters the workspace, professionalism leaves.
Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
241–250 of 297 posts
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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.
Isn’t her district being redrawn and possibly affecting demographics? I might have misheard.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
> You're blatantly ignoring the white supremacist views and actions of literal neonazis >Sorry, but I don't care if they're being actively violent at that moment in time because their views are centered around oppressing others and committing violence against minorities and other "nonwhites" Okay, let's compare apples to apples then. If there was a "literal neonazi" on a subway car and he was unmolested by fellow pas…
[flagged]
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
An appeal to fewer emotions in politics can sometimes come from a place of privilege, but I'm coming to realize that it's still USEFUL. I'm also in an odd, semi-orthogonal situation: I'm a homosexual female of child-bearing age, so while I may be impacted by this, it's far less likely than for other women and the situation would always be one of those tricky exceptions (plus, since most women are raped by men they kn…
> I think it's possible to both acknowledge the devastation people are feeling while also thinking it's counter-productive to ONLY have that conversation. Very good point -- I completely agree. From my place of privilege (again, not saying this about anyone else) I think I often considered emotion to be completely useless and to just set it aside. Thank you for the reminder that both emotion and logical thinking shou…
> Very good point -- I completely agree. From my place of privilege (again, not saying this about anyone else) I think I often considered emotion to be completely useless and to just set it aside. Thank you for the reminder that both emotion and logical thinking should be acknowledged.
Same hat, which is why I bring it up: If it can help somebody else figure this out before their 30s, it's good. In particular, emotions are great to help figure out priorities and set direction: If you don't feel anything, it's really hard to decide what you want to do with your life, for example.
> banning abortion is treating a symptom rather than the root of why unwanted pregnancies occur (i.e. lack of sex education, dysfunctional family/societal dynamics, etc.)
I mean, it is. Banning abortion is basically the only thing all pro-lifers agree on. To address the root of unwanted pregnancies, we'd all have to agree on the causes AND that unwanted pregnancies are the main concern. (For a certain percentage of pro-lifers it's more about discouraging non-reproductive sex than about preventing the death of the fetus).
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#245As it should be. Politics at work makes for untenable working conditions. Large enough companies will tend to have people deeply on both sides of the political spectrum. Encouraging or even allowing discussion on hot political issues is a recipe for disaster. It can ruin what we’re otherwise perfectly good working relationships.
Why? Meta is using the money they make off the women working for them against them.
Wat?
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#246Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Isn’t her district being redrawn and possibly affecting demographics? I might have misheard.
Redistricting made her district more favorable to Democrats and Democrats are expected to take back the seat next year. But the Democratic candidate, Vicente Gonzales, is also pro life: https://sbaprolife.org/representative/vicente-gonzalez
Pro-choice Democrats have painted themselves into a tough spot. After moving left on race and immigration, they lost significant support in the Midwest and Rust Belt. They assumed that pickups among Hispanics in the southwest and south would offset those losses. But Hispanics are more conservative than whites on abortion. (Polling shows that about the same percentage of both, 40%, oppose abortion: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini.... But abortion views are strongly correlated with age, and the median Hispanic is 14 years younger than the median white. Which means that at any given age range—such as the age ranges that tend to vote—Hispanics are more conservative. Moreover, because Democrats win only a minority of the white vote, they need to win 70%+ of the Hispanic vote.)
Democrats have reframed figures like David Portnoy and Joe Rogan—folks who appeal to white working class folks in the Midwest and Rust Belt—as “right wing” and “racist, sexist, and homophobic.” But note that both strongly sided with liberals on Roe being overturned: https://www.foxnews.com/media/barstools-dave-portnoy-rips-ro.... This group is less religious than the GOP as a whole, and has long been willing to at least go along with keeping Roe even if they were personally pro life.
Democrats traded a less religious, more individualistic part of their coalition, for a more religious, more family oriented one.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#247Anyone who’s been inside a tech company office is aware of the constant leftist political soap-boxing from employees and leadership. Activists are complaining that for the first time ever they are restricted from championing a left-leaning issue on employee-facing forums.
For those who prefer to focus on product development (i.e. “work”) , this restriction is a welcome reprieve from the near-constant virtue signaling and propaganda that distracts from getting work done.
Context matters here. media are positioning this as censorship, when in fact it’s one issue among dozens throughout the year where the activists have been “throttled”. If anyone is being censored, it would be the employees who would rather just work during the day and keep politics outside of the office.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Only for people who accept that as fact, or who openly invite into every aspect of their lives. Before the internet it was not so common to air one's bullshit, if you will.
Were you alive before the Internet? Life used to be, if anything, more political. Earlier in the 20th century, there were a lot more (local) newspapers and they all had very pointed points of view. Radio stations tended to be independent and if they had news broadcasts, it would be hyper-local and often political. Hell, thriving union membership gave us the greatest prosperity this country has seen and unions are ver…
Approximately half of my life has been pre-broadband (which for me defines the arrival of the modern, very-online Internet). I find your points to be heavily biased and unrelatable. You're also conflating the media with the individual. My own experience before the arrival of very-online-internet does not match what you describe. Sure, there were media outlets and those outlets spoke about politics. However, individuals had no easily accessible soap boxes to speed vitriol and hurl accusations at others anonymously as they do now. Individuals didn't announce their preferences and every opinion to the neighborhood.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#249Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have been required to disclose vaccine status for decades in many situations. Your right to privacy is not absolute; the state (and society in general) frequently need to know things about you to function well, including protecting public health and reducing senseless death. This is a necessary evil for us to have a civilization in the first place and is not "destroying the bedrock of the last 50 years of soci…
It doesn’t matter if the vaccine gives you wings and free beer for life. The government should NOT be able to mandate an injection (tested for not very long) into a person’s sovereign body. (I am vaccinated btw, not that it matters) Privacy violations are NOT a necessary evil. They are the slipperiest of slopes. Look to china to see where this road ends. The government is not our parents, it’s a naughty power hungry…
If the government cannot mandate it, then many states will. And said states will refuse to let you travel to them if you cannot provide proof of vaccination.
The reality is that vaccination has been a requirement to participate in society for decades. You have to be vaccinated to go to college, your children must be vaccinated to go to school. And if you want to travel countries will demand you provide proof of vaccination so that you're not a walking bag of diseases.
Re: Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're blatantly ignoring the white supremacist views and actions of literal neonazis >Sorry, but I don't care if they're being actively violent at that moment in time because their views are centered around oppressing others and committing violence against minorities and other "nonwhites" Okay, let's compare apples to apples then. If there was a "literal neonazi" on a subway car and he was unmolested by fellow pas…
[flagged]
>If they were parading around swastikas yea, I'd expect at least a few people to stand up and say something
"say something" and then what? Convince them that being a nazi is bad so they leave? Let's be real here, the only realistic way of dealing with a nazi at a protest is through physical force.
>I also didn't call the anti vax protestors Nazis. I said they were okay with Nazism, while similar it is different
1. the wording is from the parent post, not you
2. Does this change much? Would you call that bus/subway full of people as being "okay with Nazism"?
>I definitely would not want to be associated with Nazis but maybe that's just me
Clearly the organizers doesn't want to be associated with nazis either, but as mentioned above, my suspicion is that unless you're with a group of left wing activists, the chance that there's someone willing to use violence to stop the nazi is fairly low.