Google cancels AI ethics board in response to outcry

In most of the US, political affiliation isn't a protected class. There are good reasons this is true; as a country, we generally (a) recognize a difference between private social or economic pressure and censure and legal sanctions or punishment and (b) reserve the right to apply private pressure to, say, hamstring the KKK. The notion that you could find out an employee was a Klansman and be barred from firing them is somewhat abhorrent. Going too far down the road that it's unacceptable to apply private pressure for political beliefs would lead to some fascinating pathologies, such as making strikes or boycotts illegal.

(The civil service is generally a noteworthy and fascinating exception to this rule, as it was learned early in America's history that there was little value gained in gutting the bureaucracy every time executive leadership changed hands. So, for example, the President's cabinet and some top positions are appointed and tend to rotate out upon change of Presidency, but most hired positions in the federal bureaucracy are protected from politically-motivated hiring or firing. But that protection is not extended to the private sector, with some state-specific exceptions. California is a notable exception to the rule, and whether Damore was fired for being conservative has come up. The possibility didn't sway the NLRB's ruling, apparently.

Whether one political point of view or another could make someone likelier to take actions that are in violation of federal employment law is left as an exercise for the reader ;) ).

All of those comes across far more formally than "guys", they remind me of a written order from a military officer (source: 10 years in the Army). For me "guys" seems far friendlier.

I'm not sure there's actually a widening political divide. I believe what we're witnessing is an increasing silence from the center. The fringes are constantly outraged, inconsolable, and unreasonable in their knee-jerk attacks in every direction. One can no longer lean in a particular direction. One must now fall headlong into passionate ruin or go home if they merely wish to reason, consider, and discuss.

> I think same-sex marriage should be allowed.

That's good, because in a liberal society people should be allowed to do and be × whatever and whoever they want as long as they aren't impinging on others' right to do the same.

We are trying to build a liberal society here, right?

> I think those who engage in same-sex relationships are engaging in an immoral activity.

And how do you act on this opinion? In light of your 2), maybe you keep it to yourself because you hold others' freedoms as more important than your personal judgment of their lifestyles. I might judge you in the same way for having this opinion.

> I think there are 2 genders, male and female, and they are fixed at birth. This breaks down for some people with medical conditions but make up a small enough percentage with should deal with that on a case by case basis.

Similar to the above. Personally I don't get why some "right-leaning" folks get worked up about this, but what I care about is: what are you doing about it? Despite your own feelings, do you respect the right of someone to identify as a gender not traditionally associated with their biological sex? Surely, at least, you recognize that the statement in 4) is not any more than an opinion?

This issue gets into thornier territory and I do think it has to be handled on a case by case basis. Given today's political climate you may be surprised to hear that I don't think e.g. that I, a biological male, should be able to declare myself female and then go compete in physical sports against biological women. We have to be honest with ourselves, and treat in good faith with "the other side"; on this issue particularly I think the public discourse is in a very sorry state. We are talking past each other, and we love it. It's disgusting.

---

This segues into another point, and your 1). Take the bathroom thing. People are allegedly concerned that men will declare themselves as women and use this fraudulently assumed identity as an excuse to prey on women in the women's bathroom.

I see this as a silly thing to worry about, and here's why: is there any real evidence or convincing argument that it will make the existing problem worse? Recently in my city, Seattle, (for instance) there have been multiple incidents of homeless men raping women in women's bathrooms. In general, women are preyed upon by men with some frequency. So I don't really worry about this opening a door; the door is already open.

> I think that a physical border should be erected on the southern border.

Similarly, is this a data-driven solution? Is it anchored in a lucid, rational analysis of the real world? I see "the border wall", the idea in the public consciousness, as a thing that exists solely as a political tool. Maybe that is me being excessively cynical, but that's a fact: I see people who support it as having been duped by a demagogue. I would be interested to hear informed opinions stating otherwise.

And here I can circle around to answer your question more generally. The fact that I've typed this all out is representative of my expectation of a certain level of good-faith engagement that no longer (?) seems to exist in the American public discourse. I believe that if people are not speaking thoughtfully, if they are not arguing in good faith, that their contributions are worthless and should be ignored.

Our politics today is full of this. It exists on the left and the right, but Trump is perhaps the exemplar. He is a bully and a brazen liar, illiberal and anti-intellectual, and he fosters and encourages those traits in Americans who follow him. I don't believe he or those who make contributions on the same level should be allowed to contribute, no. I think we should stand up and say enough is enough.

That is not the same as me saying conservative voices should be silenced. Far from it.

The umber of trans people harassing somebody in the bathroom, or otherwise, is probably minuscule enough, and indeed there are laws that deal with that.

But you seem to be intentionally overlooking GP's main point -- people (dare I say most people, probably) have that strange hangup that they really prefer to visit the restroom with people of the same biological gender.

And before somebody comes back with "at some point people did not want to share bathroom with people of a different race", there was a movement to make people see folks of other color as fully human. There is no movement to make people accept seeing naked people with different genitalia.

(added) I don't think anyone is arguing seriously that transsexuals should not use public restrooms, period. But which restroom to use isn't quite as simple as "whatever gender they identify with", unless you believe that others have absolutely no say in the matter.