[manfredo]

The following views were listed on the memo:

* Support of President Trump (e.g. Thiel's and Palmer Lucky's campaign contributions)

* "All lives matter"

* Criticism of Islam's human rights record.

* Calling the company's art politically radical .

Which, if any, of these views don't deserve respect?

[landryraccoon]

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.

[adrr]

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".

[fizwhiz]

don't all endangered species matter though?

[some1else]

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.

[manfredo]

"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.

[manfredo]

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.

[emddudley]

No, one could not argue that in any seriousness. All Lives Matter is being used primarily as an attempt to diminish Black Lives Matter.

[manfredo]

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.

[wilsonnb3]

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.

[manfredo]

It seems you don't actually object to "all lives matter" - just the messages you're injecting in your interpretation. Nothing about "all lives matter" says that all races suffer equally. Nothing about it says that "black lives matter" is denying the worth of non-black lives.

Appeals to judge based on subtext is often an excuse to construct a strawman. A good analogy is criticism of "listen and believe". Many of it's critics complain that it has the subtext that we should do away with the priciples of innocent until guilty and due process. But the phrase says nothing of the sort - just that we should support and listen to victims. Some, perhaps even a significant portion, of those saying "listen and believe" may have used it to further those notions, but it is not correct to pass judgement on the phrase itself.

And for what it's worth I do think that those two messages you outlined are not okay. As stated earlier. That's why I disapprove of "all lives matter" folks from trying to tell "black lives matter" to say "all" - because doing so is depriving people of a voice to more specifically highlight the discrimination Blacks face. Similar I disapprove of the reverse, because it gives credence to the notion that "black lives" is in exclusion of other groups.

[bobdole12345]

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.

[manfredo]

> 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 phrase "listen and believe". Plenty of critics complained that this had the subtext of taking actions against the accused on testimony alone, and doing away with the principles of due process. Some users of the phrase may have attempted to advance those views, but "listen and believe" in and of itself is not about eroding due process - just that we should support people who believe they are victims. Similarly "All lives matter" is not a racist viewpoint - unless someone genuinely believes that the idea that any unjustly extinguished life is a tragedy is somehow racist.

"All lives matter" when specifically used to the exclusion of "black lives matter" (e.g. telling BLM activists to say "all lives matter" instead) may have a racist subtext. And as I have mentioned repeatedly elsewhere, I do not approve of these usages. That said, the blanket statement that "all lives matter" is racist is as wrong as saying "listen and believe" is about punishing people on baseless accusations.

[landryraccoon]

> 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.

[dragonwriter]

> One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races.

Not without ignoring the context, meaning, and focus.

> "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population

No, it's a dismissal of the central problem that BLM is organized to address.

[tjr225]

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.

[some1else]

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.

[manfredo]

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.

[some1else]

The way I read the article is that HR told the complainers that everyone is entitled to their opinion.

On the other hand, how many Marxsists are hired into Wall Street companies, and what is their sway on the company culture?

[mavelikara]

#2; it is an underhanded way to trivialize attempt by one group to draw attention to their struggles.

[brainkim]

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.

[vimy]

You equal criticising religion to white supremacy? That's really troubling.

[fake-name]

Specifically singling out islam is very, very strongly correlated with it, so yes.

[mmirate]

Actually, specifically singling out Islam is only logical because it is the largest group of people with whom these issues are associated.

[webkike]

Critcism of Islam is almost always qualified with "and that's why we shouldn't let them into our country"

[manfredo]

Then say what you really mean: criticism of Islam is okay, discrimination against Muslims is not.

[antidesitter]

> Criticizing of Islam's human rights record is deeply problematic. I’d consider firing people who do it.

On pain of Poe’s law, are you being sarcastic?

[manfredo]

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%.

[charlesism]

    > 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.

[manfredo]

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.

[charlesism]

    > 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.

[manfredo]

I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about tolerance. Only tolerating the things you think are morally right isn't tolerance - quite the opposite. Tolerance entails tolerating things even when you don't find them morally right. For instance, I think a closed border is morally bad - it's still an act of intolerance if I were to fire someone for supporting enforcement of immigration laws.

This warped definition of tolerance particularly worried me. The growing notion that tolerance means snuffing out views one disapproves of, rather than tolerating them is the root of much of the growing political division in my opinion. And not to mention, there's a big risk that this will hurt liberals in the long run. It's easy to forget that this line of thinking also empowers conservatives to snuff out views they don't like - and look at who's in control of the White House, Congress, and (likely soon to be) the Supreme Court.

[mmirate]

> If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical.

Congratulations, you've discovered why democracy is stupid.

[dang]

Please don't post shallow dismissals here, and especially not ideological ones.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

[charlesism]

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.

[mmirate]

> I can't tell if you're being sarcastic?

I didn't put a "/s" because doing so would convey an inaccuracy.

> 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.

Our Bill of Rights doesn't say squat about what happens when 51% of the population decide that they want to steal all of your possessions for themselves. If a dispute-resolver (especially a monopolistic one, aka a government) does not purport to protect from even the simple crime of theft, then it is most stupid.

[_mhyx]

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.

[camel_Snake]

Just want to nitpick and say 45% of American's didn't vote for Trump - 45% of voters in 2016 voted for Trump.

[_iyig]

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.

[bodas]

A straw man would probably not be a very effective employee anyway.

[_iyig]

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.

[bodas]

> 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.

[_iyig]

There are 13 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is punishable by death, including Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan only imposes the death sentence for blasphemy.

The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true)

I’ve heard horror stories of ex-Muslims in the US who were kidnapped and physically abused by their family when they tried to leave Islam.

Between mass-rape attacks in Germany, the many, many grooming gangs in the UK, and the latest sexual assault statistics from Sweden, I think it’s fair to take a skeptical eye towards mainstream Islamic male culture. Moderate and reformist Muslims in the West, for context, comprise a small majority of the faithful.

The Christian and Jewish faiths have reformed and lightened up with the liberalization of Western society. I think it’s fair to expect and allow adherents to the Islamic faith to walk a similar path.

EDIT: And for the record, I get along great with my Muslim co-workers. Please stop moving goalposts; to reiterate, your premise was that criticism of Islam's human rights record is driven by deep-rooted white supremacy.

[postnihilism]

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...

[_iyig]

The original point of argument was “Criticism of Islam's human rights record.“ Not “railing against Islam.” Was anything unclear about this?

[postnihilism]

How does this play out at work?

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.

[chimpburger]

Yes that's how it plays out. A lot of Muslims (and ex-Muslims) desperately want to reform that religion. They often emigrate to the US to get away from that crap. Go on youtube and search for "ex muslim"

[_iyig]

I think we both agree that's a ridiculous and unrealistic example.

I'm not the type to raise political or religious issues at work, unless it relates to the decision or task at hand. If my company were to consider donating to a conservative Islamic charity for International Women's Day, for example, then I might offer my perspective. Otherwise, why start workplace conversations that are likely to be divisive, distracting, and unproductive?