Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture • Hacker News Board

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#591

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:41 PM UTC

taysic wrote: post #443

jakebasile wrote: post #425

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Say I work for WeWork and travel for work. I have a limited palate and like almost nothing that could be considered vegetarian and even less that would be vegan. I am now required to pay out of pocket for all my meals, when normally I could choose to eat at home, which is not possible thanks to my job requiring me to travel. Depending on the area I'm travelling to this could be a large expense that under normal condi…

Okay, but that didn't convince me much personally. I think its absolutely in the company's liberty to cover the costs of the things they want to cover - as is the case with all benefits (other than gov mandated ones). They are just perks after all.

Disagree. I don't think of covering my expenses when traveling as a "perk". I consider it part of the minimum standard of fair dealing.

And, for those who don't see a problem with this, do you see a problem if some other company specifically won't reimburse for Mexican restaurants?

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#592

Post by PunchTornado » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:43 PM UTC

gthtjtkt wrote: post #64

euroclydon wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea that a bunch of highly paid conservative software developers would unionize and get the NLRB involved is rich.

Who said they're all conservatives? I'm a liberal and I'd join this group in a heartbeat.

same here. some liberals are so fanatic that they can't hold a dialogue with a person of opposing views. I've got a friend who stopped speaking with their father because of Brexit.

I have no issues being friends with right wing people, even if they're more extreme. I just don't very often discuss politics with them, but we hang out a lot.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#593

Post by intopieces » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:45 PM UTC

Crespyl wrote: post #401

intopieces wrote: post #76

I must be naive, because I cannot think of any political topic I would be discussing at work. How is this intolerance of right-wing ideology being expressed? What views specifically are being not-tolerated? Without these specifics, it's hard to understand the problem.

Diversity practices in hiring, for example. In the case of Facebook, things like moderation/curation of the various news feeds and arguments around "suppression" of certain topics.

>Diversity practices in hiring, for example

I’m a hiring manager, but I don’t work in HR. I follow HR guidelines and ask relevant policy questions. Nothing more. I don’t express an opinion about our hiring practices around diversity.

>moderation/curation of news feeds

The article doesn’t say that all these individuals raising the issue work on one feature. That would be a relevant detail. My reading of this piece suggests that a swathe of individuals don’t like company culture — the bits that bind employees above the work itself - and that’s the part I can’t grasp. I work at a Fortune 50 company and I have no idea the political or religious affiliations of my coworkers. I could guess, but don’t want to.

I just don’t see how a company culture can have an impactful political bias to people who mind their own business. The article doesn’t specify any specific instance, so I can’t form an opinion on the validity of their claims.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#594

Post by AnimalMuppet » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:47 PM UTC

ndespres wrote: post #561

The manifesto states "There’s only going to be one core rule in the group, and it’s that if you attack a person’s character, rather than their ideas, you will be banned." People whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will often say this sort of thing- as though the two things, a person's character and their ideas, are somehow not connected. I'm not sure where they get the idea that the ideas they support indica…

But the problem is, those whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will also often attack those on the right side, saying that their ideas are "wrong", and that those "wrong" ideas are a reflection of their "bad" character, and that therefore such people should be shunned.

Unless you've got an objective meter to say which side is the "good" and which is the "bad" (and which will be so 50 years from now), be very careful about allowing people to shut down the other side.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#595

Post by PunchTornado » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:53 PM UTC

wellWisherToday wrote: post #542

Let us say person C1 says: "If person A1 preaches/supports discrimination/intolerance based on his/her belief, person A1 cannot complain about discrimination or intolerance he/she faces. One cannot say I should not be discriminated on any criteria, but I can discriminate others with some criteria which the other doesn't agree. A person B1 can have a moral compass that people should be treated as they treat others. In…

nobody right wing at facebook supports discrimination/intolerance against other people. Nobody says there, on that page, KKK quotes or preaches nazism.

Being ring wing doesn't mean you're intolerant:

- no general free healthcare, only private for people that work

- lower taxes for everyone

- no gender or racial quotas in hiring or entry at university (against positive discrimination)

- no free trade agreements with other countries

- no aid to poorer countries

- close the boders to immigrants

- no refugees

How is any of this discriminating or intolerant? I see it as a different opinion. And I am a liberal, immigrant myself and don't agree with those political statements

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#596

Post by charmides » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 3:58 PM UTC

bug_05992 wrote: post #459

charmides wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't mean we can't do our best to minimize suffering.

I would argue that there's no reason to put that kind of moral value on an animal's life. I don't see any reason to believe that minimizing suffering is equivalent to maximizing good, not in the real world where real things happen. Morality must always be tempered by reality. Sometimes suffering of some form must be endured in order to improve a situation.(Example: Your body will induce fever in an attempt to kill of…

I think your hypothesis in the third paragraph is a little off. To take an example, many (if not most) Westerners are strongly against the farming of cats and dogs for meat, which is commonplace in some Asian countries. Those farmers are not breaking any promises of taking care of their animals, so this Western opposition must be coming from the fact that we think that cats and dogs have an intrinsically higher value than the animals we eat here.

To respond to some of your other points:

* I am against the torture and killing of animals for food when other nutritious and more environmentally-friendly food is abundant. This does not imply that animals and humans have the same moral value. I have yet to meet a person who claims this, so this always seems like a straw-man argument to me.

* On the same note, I have no problems with people keeping pets as long as they take good care of them.

* Minimizing suffering does not mean that you would prefer the body not to induce fever to fight disease, because that would lead to more suffering in the future.

* We should both be maximizing happiness and minimizing suffering as far it is possible.

* Also, why involve religion here? I am sorry but I fail to see your point in the fourth paragraph.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#597

Post by thiht » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 4:02 PM UTC

falcolas wrote: post #333

A lot of hassle could be spared if we all followed one simple rule while at work: "In polite company, it’s not proper to talk about sex, religion, or politics" No matter what you have to say on those topics, you'll step on someone's toes. There's really no good reason to talk about it at work unless you're in a brothel, church, or a capital building.

Maybe it's a US thing? In France we regularly have somewhat heated (in the sense that we obiously disagree) talks about politics, religion and so on but it remains cordial becaus, you know, we're adults...

Isn't it simpler for everyone to behave like respectful adults even when you fundamentally disagree than making a blanket rule to only ever discuss non sensible subjects?

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#598

Post by bobdole12345 » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 4:09 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #503

bobdole12345 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me explain something you seem to be missing: subtext. Subtext is what is being said without being said. So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg. When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist. I know that might seem confusing, because the…

> So, when I say, "break a leg" to an actor most people pick up on the subtext, and realize I'm not wishing the actor actually break their leg. Incorrect, this isn't subtext, this is an idiom. > When someone responds to "Black lives matter" with "All lives matter", most people get the subtext is that assuredly racist. Complaints about "subtext" is often an excuse to construct and attack a straw man. Consider the phra…

Man you can really miss a point there.

Look at the people saying "All lives matter", then look at the people saying "Black lives matter".

Lo, and you are enlightened my child.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#599

Post by philwelch » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 4:19 PM UTC

nepeckman wrote: post #573

philwelch wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous views as well. Well, maybe. It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA, which was directly bankrolled from Moscow. Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones…

> Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch hunt”. I'm honestly surprised to see Jones and Damore mentioned in the same sentence. Jones deliberately spreads misinformation and personally response for directing a lot of hatred and harassment towards innocent people. Damore just published some unpopular (and in m…

> Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let alone suspected of being Communists...

I was referring more to the original Hollywood Ten. Although, I'm curious to hear how the witch hunt you describe would not, in fact, happen with a similarly concerted attempt targeted at far-right views.

> I think a perfect example of this is the Unite the Right rally 1 year ago, vs the reunion this past year. After the events a year ago, many white supremacists were doxxed, shamed, and fired. This year, no one came out to the reunion. If the rally a year ago was a success, do you think that would be the case?

If anything, that's an argument that we don't have to ban Nazis, because all of that happened without any kind of laws in the first place.

Although, I think this also demonstrates what complete rank amateurs the Charlottesville crowd really was. If they had followed the most basic precautions taken by the antifa/black bloc crowd and just covered their faces, it would have been a lot harder to dox them.

The only reason these people are more visible is because the media is putting a spotlight on them to drive the narrative that they're a growing and increasingly dangerous group. It's very reminiscent of the opening stages of the McCarthyist witch hunts.

Re: Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture

#600

Post by mbrumlow » Wed, Aug 29, 2018, 4:22 PM UTC

hegz wrote: post #421

taneq wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I grew up with the understanding that just because someone thought differently to me didn't mean they were wrong, and that it's OK for people to agree to disagree on some things while still remaining friends. This view has definitely gone out of vogue in the past 10 years.

So you are saying that +10 years ago, someone could tell their friends and coworkers that they were transgender and everyone would just reply "yeah alright, whatever is best for you"

10 years ago? Yeah that is exactly how it was. We had no less than 3 transgender coworkers at any given time. And that was in Texas of all places. I don't know what sort of experience you had but I have a feeling you are letting it cloud your judgment.