61–70 of 1001 posts
FYI: If you say you don't care about politics and you ban political speech in your workspace - that on its own is a political statement that you're fine with the status quo.
Reminds me of Peter Handke's recent Nobel prize in literature, where the committee were/are heavily criticized for judging only by literature, and not by Handke's political viewpoints. Maybe politics doesn't need to be involved in every single part of society, only the political aspects of it.
Handke was hand-picked by a panel to receive some special benefit.
Gitlab offers a mass service which essentially anyone can use; any denial of the service would require searching out individuals to penalize from among the masses.
GitLab are being hypocritical[1][2]. Let's not pretend the "women in tech" and LGBT movements aren't political. Frankly, I think more women in tech and LGBT representation are probably good things, but GitLab is being profoundly disingenuous with their guidelines. To clarify my point: if you open the gates to the marketplace of ideas, make sure it's an actual marketplace . [1] https://about.gitlab.com/blog/2018/10/08…
Those are great questions. But please omit the flamebait. (Edit: dvt kindly took the flamebait out—see below.) If flames take over, only the people who enjoy flaming will remain in the debate. That's a strict loss for thread quality, which is one reason for the guideline I asked everyone to remember above: " Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. " https://news.y…
Human rights aren't politics, they're non-negotiable.
http://criticallegalthinking.com/2019/07/12/hannah-arendt-ri...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe it's a SV thing? I saw some of the documents from a recent lawsuit against Google and was pretty astounded by the sorts of things that people were willing to not only say but actually put into writing where anyone on their intranet could see (things along the lines of "I won't let anyone on my team if they have political belief X or voted for Y")
It's 100% a SV thing. It is assumed that everyone working for a SV company is on the left and hates anything on the right. Voice dissent at your own peril.
O/T: the "Blood Money" part of the article title is why I hate news media in general. Sensationalizing, editorializing headlines marked as "news" and not just opinion.
FYI: If you say you don't care about politics and you ban political speech in your workspace - that on its own is a political statement that you're fine with the status quo.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just to confirm, "this one" in your comment refers to the original article's title being "really bad"? (As opposed to the editorialized title.)
I think "this one" refers to the original article's title being really bad: "Blood money is fine with us, says GitLab: Vetting non-evil customers is 'time consuming, potentially distracting'"
What I find most amazing is less the politics aspect and more the moral/ethical issue. For a company to have an explicit stated policy of _actively_ never taking into account the moral/ethical impact of their work is just... astounding. It is difficult to imagine a more inhuman and bloodless statement.
It's more like a pressure cooker company saying "We build kitchen tools. We don't care who buys them. We will not spend any resources vetting customers to make sure they won't blow up a marathon with our product. Yes, even neo nazis are allowed to buy our product even though we executives disagree with them politically/morally/etc."
That's an entirely reasonable stance.