The problem is who decides what views should or should not be tolerated? Some would say if you eat meat you should not be tolerated. Others might think pro-choice ideas should not be tolerated.
That aside, we really need to figure out as a society how to fix a few notions. 1) You have some sort of right to not be offended. 2) You must get outraged at anything you disagree with.
There once was a time when two people with different ideas could be in the same room as each other. But long are those days. Now we live in a time where simply having your name printed next to somebody's name who made a joke you were offended by calls for public outrage and immediate removal of the offending persons name from said list.
There was never a time when different ideas were tolerated. The things we tolerate have changed. Maybe the time you speak of was the time when all of your ideas were tolerated.
In the past people tolerated the idea that it was OK to own slaves, now we dont. In the past people did not tolerate the idea that it is OK to be gay, now we do.
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.
Nothing has changed with regard to reasonable people reasonably disagreeing over reasonable differences. The Overton Window has changed for sure, but that's what it does. I struggle to think of any perspective that has moved out of the Overton Window over the past 10 years that I regret losing. If anything the Overton Window has moved backwards in recent years to better accommodate the Alex Joneses of the world, but I don't see how that's a good thing.
>The Overton Window has changed for sure, but that's what it does. I struggle to think of any perspective that has moved out of the Overton Window over the past 10 years that I regret losing.
Honestly, I want the Overton Window to be consistent with what people actually do in real life. I've begun to grow uncomfortable with a political environment in which we all need to hash-tag #AbolishICE, when we all know that the actual abolition of the American border is outside the Overton Window for the solid reasons that nobody has come up with a plan to do it, including the people leading the hash-tag campaigns.
If we are to have an Overton Window, I want it to be the same one for rhetoric, actions, and policies. I don't want this world we're getting where we all mouth extremist rhetoric and then pass mild reformist touch-ups to the status quo.
* Abolishing ICE doesn't require abolishing the border entirely, just abolishing a police force that gets as much funding as the FBI even though it is dedicated to one small subset of violations.
* It is OK to have ideals that you work towards while knowing that you won't necessarily reach them.
Peoples' definition of 'reasonable' has absolutely changed. That's essentially what the Overton Window describes: The set of viewpoints which are considered 'reasonable'.
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.
This is a very strange opinion to take. What do you think parliaments do and/or did, declare their opinions and then bring out the swords and pistols?*
If you fix number one above, number two almost certainly will be fixed too. Maybe we need more and more "offensive" comedians and everyday people. The only way to fix a phobia like this is to super expose people to it. In this case, expose those offended to things that offend them. Over and over again. That's always been my thinking when I create literature for example. Shock people until they are numb. Because no one has a right not to be offended.
>This month, the social network barred the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, a move that critics seized on as further evidence that the company harbors an anti-conservative bias.
Banning someone like Alex Jones is not an anti-conservative bias. It is an anti-asshole bias. No one is going to ban you for discussing tax policy.
Sure, but I'm not the one who lumped those two together. That quote in the article says the conservative critics are the ones jumping to use Jones' ban as evidence of anti-conservative bias. The "critics" are self-identifying as Jones' allies. That is a red flag in my book since many of Jones' views don't deserve respect.
I think the Democratic Socialists of San Francisco deserve no respect; and their policy advocacy will only lead to higher rents, more homelessness and more despair.
But I'm not going to take their ability to use the internet away. In High school I really hated NetNanny - I'm not sure why so many people are so determined to become NetNanny.
No one took away Alex Jones' ability to use the internet. They took away his ability to use their platform to spread his message after violating their TOS.
He is free to start his own Facebook, Twitter, etc.
I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech.
While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine)
The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.
Alex Jones is not respected by most conservatives (even the hypothetical person who agreed with every single one of his views would still think that his delivery was a bit hammy). If conservatives are rallying around him, it's based on the idea that as soon as the least defensible person is gone, the least defensible person becomes whoever used to be the second least defensible, and so on, and so on...
It's almost the mirror image of the NRA strategy of saying, "don't ban any guns," because if you ban only the worst guns then a new set of guns becomes the worst guns, until you've banned every gun.
There is a poem by Niemoller that seems relevant[1]. The point of the poem is that if you don't speak up against actions taken against groups, you may not have support when action is taken against you.
What is going on appears to be people standing up and saying "enough". Which is good. If they are hauled away and fired, well, then not so good.
This is not the first time I've seen somebody attempt to align this quote with groups that sympathize with other neo-nazi sympathizers (I mean, knowingly or not). If this group is allying themselves with Alex Jones, then I would hesitate attributing this quote to their cause.
This quote was explicitly about the nazis. [Utilizing it this way] It seems to do Niemöller a disservice, IMO.
I sympathize with people are shut out of civil conversation just for holding views on the other side of the spectrum— that shouldn't happen. Allying with Jones was either a crucial mistake for optics here, or outs the real beliefs inherent—that they're not just wanting to discuss conservative policy.
Banning Alex Jones from FB being a core piece of evidence that somehow FB is anti-conservative doesn't sound to me like concern over civil conversation. Jones was banned for inciting violence against innocent parties amongst other things.
"Free speech" as a general principle isn't about respect. It's a practical cease-fire: we agree to not try to censor your views even while it's within our power, and you agree to not try to censor our views even while it's within your power.
If Facebook has the right to set up their workplace such that mainstream right-of-center views are excluded, then other companies have the right to set up their workplaces such that mainstream left-of-center views get excluded, too. IMO, it's far better to cut as much of the political BS as possible so that the greatest number of folks can get along and work together - this is why a lot of workplaces have a professional norm against talking politics in general.
Your gut reaction to "not left-leaning views" was "not all views deserve respect", implying they are awful, unconceivable ideas that they want to express. Not a personal attack because, right now, this is the only non-greyed message in this thread, which means most people agree with you. That's bad.
It depends on who you ask. Saying something in public or doing something against some of the hot, left-leaning ideas of this time (feminism, or homosexualism) could very well get you fired. I'm sure you can think of examples...
Problem is that some people want to lump, for example, "abortion is murder" and "burn all niggers" together so nobody can ever make the former point.
That feels like a strawman. When people want to debate feminism nowadays they don't want to talk about whether women should have equal rights or not. For example some people say abortion is part of feminism. Some are for it some are against it. That doesn't mean they want to keep women as sex slaves.
See, you're doing it too. You're assuming that ALL feminist ideas are morally invincible on the grounds that they are championing "equal rights for women" (whether that's actually true or not) and shaming GP for implying differently
I downvoted you (and I assume others did too) because your assertion is only half true and that makes it pretty misleading. The other valid reply presented was about "homosexualism" (not sure what that means exactly) and in that context "feminism" means "rights," thus "equal rights."
So ya, I think 1800s is a pretty fair (albeit satirical) statement/question.
Western feminism is no longer a movement that does any appreciable work towards equal rights for women. They, uhh, kind of already have that in the developed world.
The fact that "western feminism" doesn't appear to believe that women have achieved equal rights seems to me like maybe there's some more discussion to be had and changes to be made?
Oh dear ... we seem to have found an accidental logical inconsistency in the universe. Prepare for reboot in 3 .. 2 ..
More seriously, I can and do disagree strenuously with friends, family, coworkers over many things.
I value opposing viewpoints, as it helps me think through my own views. Without those opposing viewpoints, we get echo chambers. These echo chambers decide to not respect viewpoints not in agreement with their own.
It is inevitable that Godwin's law is somehow invoked these days, almost by reflex. In the US, we have the right to speak freely without interference from the government with very specific limited exceptions. So we cannot make the most odious speech illegal. We can protest such speech, but we need to do this within the bounds of the law.
Regardless of my views, I find myself censoring what I say aloud, or write in posts like this. As the narratives do shift, and one day, I may find my views which were one day mainstream, are now deep into fringe territory.
This is not good. Anyone thinking that shutting someone down hard by means other than a better argument, needs to be prepared for when their views are on the outside.
Put another way, this is a very slippery slope. We really don't want to continue down this path.
I applaud the FB group, hopefully they can make a difference.
Care to quote any specifics? I always... appreciate... how it's hearsay as opposed to just citing first party documents / quotes / material and letting people decide for themselves.
Interesting point of view. Presumably, the views you agree with deserve respect, the others not so much. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
There is a difference between "respect" and "tolerance". You don't have to 'respect' anyone's speech, but if we live in a country with Freedom of Speech, then you for sure have to tolerate things you don't agree with. Even if your company decides to ban certain speech, you can't avoid it forever...
I disagree. Not all actions deserve respect. If facebook has some official views, and then an employee goes and publicly states 'I, an employee of facebook, think X', where X is counter to those official views, then they should absolutely be disciplined and/or fired. However, internally, there is no reason not to let people express whatever ideas they choose.
No, he's probably afraid of someone playing Internet Detective against him for his audacious behavior of going against the currently-approved orthodoxy... and then doxxing him and his employer and starting a manufactured outrage campaign on Twitter until he gets fired.
I'm not following you? Is the point of your post that liberals can hold bad views(which I agree with) or is your point that you might be criticized? If it's the latter then I think that in fact you have proved my point - that holding back your opinions here is stupid. I guess it could be some mix of the two, but wouldn't that make the other point just some tool for you to express that HN is left leaning? What exactly is wrong with that (other than, you know, someone might disagree with you)?
And if you think HN is left leaning...I think that's insane. Just look at the comments here, read about you the blind libertarianism in almost any other comment section here. Are you kidding!?
In any case, I can't see how I "literally proved your point" unless the point of your post was something other than what it is overtly- and if that was your point then I still think being afraid of being criticized here is stupid.
I'd love to reply further but i feel you've put words in my mouth I did not say. If you'd like discuss in person, I wouldn't mind continuing a civil discussion. www.keybase.io/exabrial
I'm genuinely curious what "All lives matter" stands for except for being opposed to the idea that "Black lives matter".
There's a key difference here - "Black lives matter" attempts to point out that there is discrimination in law enforcement that seems to single out minorities. Correcting this discrimination would be good. What policy change does "All lives matter" advocate? Do those policy changes indeed benefit "all lives" or are they more designed to take away focus from legitimate problems minorities face due to racism or inequality?
To be honest I quite suspect it is the latter, and that is why I frankly suspect that "All lives matter" is racist at it's core. After all, if the movement doesn't really advocate for policy changes that benefit all lives but instead is just a reaction to attempts to fix discrimination, that is pretty racist.
All lives matter argument is one of the dumbest things i've ever heard. It's like responding to a "Save the whales" movement, with "all endangered species matter".
It's ridiculous to diminish the plight of whales because smallpox are also nearly extinct. Go for "smallpox matter" instead, and see what people really think.
"How about pangolins then? Or giraffes? I know, let's start a moment to protect all endagered species - including whales!" How is this "all endagered animals matter" a bad thing?
For what it's worth, I don't object to either "all species" or just whales. Regardless of whether someone is trying to protect all or focus their attention on one specific species, they're both working towards a good cause - though I do disapprove of the former trying to substitute the latter or vice versa.
One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races. "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population (and thus, have better chances of creating change). It's viable to argue that sticking with the former is worth the exclusive rhetoric because Black people suffer disproportionately. But the notion of actually _firing_ someone over using "all lives matter" as the memo alleges seems absolutely insane.
One absolutely could. Black lives matter is a strict subset of all lives matter. Any life being covered by "black lives matter" is also covered by "all lives matter". In that sense, it cannot diminish "black lives matter" because "black lives matter" is wholly contained within "all lives matter". Furthermore, the portion of the population that has a direct interest in the movement succeeding is expanded by 5-7x. Seems like a pretty big gain to me
For what it's worth, I approve of both "all lives matter" and "black lives matter" since both are working towards positive goals, they only differ in specificity. I do, however, disapprove of trying to pressure people into substituting the latter with the former or vice versa.
You're completely ignoring the subtext from the All Lives Matter folks.
Saying "all lives matter" in response to "black lives matter" implies that the BLM folks are saying that only black lives matter, which they are not saying. It also implies that all races in america face similar struggles, which is also not totally true.
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 they're saying one thing, while meaning something very different.
> One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races.
Is it solely the name that you object to, or the idea that discrimination in law enforcement against minorities should be rectified? If it's the former, it seems like such a minor point, like saying you don't like Twitter because the name is dumb. The fact that you don't like the marketing name of a non profit / activist movement seems like such a trivial thing to start an entire counter-movement over. If it's the latter, and you think that discrimination against minorities isn't worth making a fuss over, that is actually pretty racist.
The fact that you're being downvoted indicates just how troubled and just how racist our society still is. Good luck all. Either hackernews has been infiltrated by a slew of far right wing posters or the general public has become so dumb that it's sweeping into this forum.
Either wait I'm inclined to post here less and read the comments here less.
Views are free to be had, and command no respect whatsoever. I respect criticism of any human rights violation, the rest of the list doesn't pertain to me. I support the freedom of people to have those views, but also welcome the prudent choice of restricting the ability to utilize the most powerful medium of our time to spread hatred. Hate all you like, but you don't get the platform on the count of first amendment.
Disclosure: I spent a bunch of time in 2016 and 2017 reporting European hate groups and pages for violations of TOS. Video montages that recycled unrelated footage for misinformation about the immigrant crisis (for fear-mongering purposes) weren't enough to achieve a takedown, but gradually most
of them progressed far enough in their rhetoric, to objectively deserve removal (Look up European identity movements).
Downvoters: I'm also talking about private Fb groups where assaults on asylums were organized.
Sure, not all views command respect, but would you actually fire an employee if a co-worker showed you records of a campaign distribution to Trump? Or if they showed you a post criticizing a Saudi cleric's views of women's rights or LGBT rights?
This memo isn't about what Facebook allows on it's platforms it's about policing the views of it's employees.
The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and absent mitigating circumstances I’d consider firing people who held them. Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel given everything that’s been going on these days.
This is exactly the kind of intolerance this memo is advocating against. If you genuinely would fire all the 45% of people that voted for Trump, anyone who disapproves of the rhetoric of BLM, or considers Islam to have a poor human rights record then I would suggest you take a look in mirror before trying to find intolerance in your employees. Easily the majority of the US population would hold at least one of those views. Heck, even the first almost brings it to 50%.
> Easily the majority of the US population
> would hold at least one of those views.
If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical. I won't insult you by bringing up obvious examples from American history. If you want to calibrate your moral compass, the right way to do it isn't always a show of hands.
Sure, but saying you'd fire the majority of the US population in the name of tolerance is absolutely contradictory. The notion that a blanket firing of 45% of the adult population is an act of tolerance is ridiculous.
Sure I do think there are some views that should not be tolerated and employees who advocate them should be removed - none of the four listed there come close to it, though.
> The notion that a blanket firing of
> 45% of the adult population is an act
> of tolerance is ridiculous.
Nope. It's perfectly moral, logical, and whether it's 45%, or 1%, or 99% makes no difference. The examples from history are too numerous to mention. You have to decide what your values are and stand by them.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic? Without additional protections, such as a bill of rights, "democracy" is stupid. But most us live in "liberal democracies", which are as good as it gets.
I have a feeling that the majority of the commenters here would not be happy with the results of an armed revolution. You can be snarky on the internet all you want, but guns win wars, and there's a hell of a lot more guns in Texas than California.
Hell, if you want to go down a very concerning rabbit hole, look up youtube videos of people prepping for a communist revolution. There's a lot of mass murder pre-planned for the end of democracy.
I don’t agree that all criticism of misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy is driven by “deeply-rooted white supremacy.”
I would fire anyone who held such a belief, as I would not trust them around female, gay, or ex-Muslim co-workers.
If you feel I’ve misunderstood your comment, or that you did not fully articulate your point, please feel free to elaborate. I’m not overly swayed or impressed by drive-by disparagement.
> misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy
It is a caricature. You have been reading the internet too much and spent too little time talking to actual Muslim people. However, if you find out that one of your employees is a member of the taliban, feel free to fire him.
Equating 'misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality' with an entire religion of 1.6 billion people is the issue, not criticism of a specific country's human rights record. You should not come to work and rail against a major world religion...
You saddle up to a co-worker at the water cooler. Hi Yasir (he's from the Bay Area), you know your religion has a terrible record of human rights? Yeah? Cool, see you at the standup in 30 minutes.
That aside, we really need to figure out as a society how to fix a few notions. 1) You have some sort of right to not be offended. 2) You must get outraged at anything you disagree with.
There once was a time when two people with different ideas could be in the same room as each other. But long are those days. Now we live in a time where simply having your name printed next to somebody's name who made a joke you were offended by calls for public outrage and immediate removal of the offending persons name from said list.
Things are in a very bad way...