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

271–280 of 297 posts

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

#271

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #257
yucky wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is a 39 week old fetus a "clump of cells that cannot survive" (any different than a newborn)? I think the real issue is that abortion support isn't as binary as some people make it out to be. I've met very few pro-choice people who support elective abortions at 39 weeks, which means even the pro-choice crowd thinks there needs to be regulations.

At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily a…

Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line.

So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?

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

#272

Post by CodeBeater »

unityByFreedom wrote: post #120
CodeBeater wrote: post #18

I think that we are missing the point here. Meta is banning open discussion on their internal platform. It does not mean that you can't chat about it with a co-worker that also happens to be your friend. I think it's reasonable. It has nothing to do with not getting people distracted, but all to do with having one less problem to deal with.

Thing is, by banning a certain viewpoint on an open platform, you are promoting another viewpoint. Those who want to be vocal about this right now are largely opposed to the court's decision. So this does not appear to be a neutral decision.

Think about it from Meta's HR perspective. If someone reads something in their internal platform that causes them substantial mental anguish, then it's Meta's problem.

Whereas if they listen to that same opinion by overhearing two co-workers talk, then it's not their problem anymore.

This isn't Meta taking a stance on the actual abortion issue, it's just them being pragmatic.

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

#273

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #271
feet wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily a…

Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line. So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?

Draw the line at 41 weeks. I don't care about your nonsense hypothetical. Bring me a real scenario. One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists

Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time

The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always

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

#274

Post by SideburnsOfDoom »

yucky wrote: post #271
feet wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At 39 weeks the woman has known she has been pregnant for some time and intends to keep the baby. If an abortion happens at this point, it's an incredibly traumatic experience because something with the pregnancy has gone extremely wrong. You present a useless hypothetical that does nothing to advance the conversation. You're repeating a useless point that does nothing besides distract from the issues of the bodily a…

Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line. So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?

> Well, where would you draw the line?

See this is the trick, the sleight-of hand - is draws you into accepting a simplistic falsehood: that a specific line has to be, should be or can be drawn.

Medicine is not law, and law is not code. Or at least, when done well they behave differently.

there is no sense in a code `if (fetus_weeks A decision between doctor and patient based on specific circumstances is what's called for.

Pete Buttigieg said it quite well in this case:

https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/pete-buttigieg-shut-down-t...

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

#275

Post by _8j50 »

epidemian wrote: post #266
_8j50 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sor…

> People like you must have always been... No need for these assumptions. Your argument is clear without them. Maybe you and i would not respond the same way on the same situation, and that's OK. Personally, when i had coworkers that would say things that i consider totally indefensible, yes, it made me feel terrible and angry, but at the same time, i was at least glad to now know who i was dealing with. I knew that…

Sorry for the "people like you.." remark.

You say it would affect you do bad you might even leave a job. So essentially you are excluding people with disagreeable views from the workplace harming their ability to provide for themselves and family. That is categorically unfair and anti democratic. Instead of people changing their views peacefully you are threatening them this way and they will also need to use force in return. You only feel this way in my opinion because you have options and your views are in the majority. Many of your views at a point were unpopular.

I do not go to work to socialize or play politics. I am there to provide labor and services in exchange for money. Quite frankly, on just about any political topic my views would offend people on any end of the political spectrum because I like to think for myself instead join the hivemind and go with party propagnada. You want to take that libery away from me. You want to force me to agree with you or become unemployed, because the other end of the political spectrum will also feel the same way as you. You think what I said before about the hypotetical person bob is bad? Ok, what if Jane is a transexual working at a factory in the deep south, how do you think that person is treated? They won't hear nice things about transexuals I can assure you that and they may not be able to move either (and they shouldn't have to).

The phrase "don't shit where you eat" comes from the fact that disease spreads and wipes out civilizations when they fail to so that. In this case, the specifics of your politics are not relevant but that you are contaminating the workplace with politics and politics with the workplace. Using the power dynamics of the workplace to further your political agenda and allowing politics to decide who works where (which again, that is illegal under labor law of many countries not just US).

In the US as well I see this trend where leftists and rightists alike think it is a good idea to force people into their camp. If a person is on your side because you forced them, obviously their supposed views are fake. You get rid of bob, but his friend jack saw what happened to bob and will quietly try to get rid of people that disagree with hid and bob's views now. You brought political conflict to the workplace now.

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

#276

Post by epidemian »

_8j50 wrote: post #275
epidemian wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People like you must have always been... No need for these assumptions. Your argument is clear without them. Maybe you and i would not respond the same way on the same situation, and that's OK. Personally, when i had coworkers that would say things that i consider totally indefensible, yes, it made me feel terrible and angry, but at the same time, i was at least glad to now know who i was dealing with. I knew that…

Sorry for the "people like you.." remark. You say it would affect you do bad you might even leave a job. So essentially you are excluding people with disagreeable views from the workplace harming their ability to provide for themselves and family. That is categorically unfair and anti democratic. Instead of people changing their views peacefully you are threatening them this way and they will also need to use force i…

> You want to force me to agree with you or become unemployed

What in the hell? I think i totally failed to communicate what i mean if took that from what i said.

I tried to say that it's a personal decision of mine to try to change my workplace if i learn that people i work with/for are completely immoral. Like, i don't wanna work with people like that. It's a personal decision. But i wouldn't want to force anyone to agree with me or anything of that sort. Sorry if it came out that way, i didn't mean to.

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

#277

Post by pas »

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.

... ironically this sugar-free watered-down self-defeating super-dumb twitter-compatible version of solidarity (dare I say intersectionality) is also the result of a loss of nuance and untangling.

it's critical to stand with others, but it's dumb to hold back good things for a minority group all groups can get what they want, and ostracizing and exiling others because they don't care enough about all the other things some cabal of the organizers of some particular movement/protest is the exact opposite of accepting others. and yes, there are issues where the tolerance of intolerance can become a serious problem, but to find those it's surprisingly not enough to apply mob justice on the spot. aaaaand yes, there are those things where even that's okay (let's say someone starts to unfurl a nazi flag)

(and excuse me for my own rudimentary dumbing down.)

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

#278

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #273
yucky wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, where would you draw the line? You can't just pretend it never happens since we know it does. And even if you want to pretend it would never happen, then there is no reason not to draw the line. So at what point should abortions be regulated? 39 weeks? 24 weeks? 16 weeks? Something else?

Draw the line at 41 weeks. I don't care about your nonsense hypothetical. Bring me a real scenario. One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always

>Draw the line at 41 weeks.

And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.

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

#279

Post by feet »

yucky wrote: post #278
feet wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draw the line at 41 weeks. I don't care about your nonsense hypothetical. Bring me a real scenario. One singular example of an abortion at 39 weeks where the mother didn't want the baby. I guarantee you can't actually find one even though you claim it exists Hypotheticals are a waste of time, bring an actual example or stop wasting my time The mother takes priority up until that baby is breathing on its own. Always

>Draw the line at 41 weeks. And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.

And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers

I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government make too much money off it and keep us peasants fighting about pointless shit like abortion while they loot the country

I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement and can't bring up that example that you just know exists. Get off that clown shit and show me a real example

So where is it? These examples of abortions where the mother didn't want it at 39 weeks

Quit lying

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

#280

Post by yucky »

feet wrote: post #279
yucky wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Draw the line at 41 weeks. And then we wonder why the pro-life crowd insists the pro-choice crowd are baby killers.

And we wonder why the anti choice crowd is seen as mother killers I don't care about hypotheticals that have no basis in reality just like I don't give a shit about what the founding fathers thought, who were rapist-racist-sexist-slave owners who didn't want blacks, women, or poor people to have any say. Yea the document written by them is flawless lol sure. The constitution is out dated but the clowns in government…

>I love how you just ignored the rest of my statement

You're making an argument for infanticide (abortions at 41 weeks <---your words) and wondering why I didn't follow the rest of your arguments?

Post reply on HN