How about suspending people who openly advocate genocide? #killallmen
If a large tech company wants to thrive in a particular area they should make sure they don't alienate any groups already existing in that area to the extent that they feel the need to wake up early in the morning to go and throw rocks to get their attention.
If it gets to this point, the company should do something to try to address the issue, and any employee that genuinely feels threatened should refuse to work until their employer provides a safe working environment.
You say don't understand. Do you want to?
They clue to your lack of understanding is in the first part of the sentence
> As an able bodied straight male working in tech
Perhaps if you imagine yourself to be someone else in another background, place, circumstances you can begin to see why a hashtag which appears (if one was unfamiliar with the history of it) to advocate the killing of millions might be offensive to some people.
You might even come to the conclusion that while you don't find it personally offensive you can understand that some might find it troublesome.
And my group (I am from east europe) was target of 6 genocides/persecutions in past century. I feel threatened, to the point I turned down some job offers.
There's an entire subreddit devoted to this idea: https://www.reddit.com/r/menkampf/
It's eye-opening just how racist many "mainstream" comments are.
Links:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/8386/feminist-journalist-all-m...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCUM_Manifesto
http://www.vice.com/en_ca/read/is-reducing-the-male-populati...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Daly
Quotes:
“I feel that ‘man-hating’ is an honourable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them.” – Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor
“I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.” — Andrea Dworkin
“The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race.” — Sally Miller Gearhart
Or Marilyn French, who believes that all men are rapists, and that in private, they boast to each other about how many women they've raped. And that the population of men should be reduced.
I will say that advocating for genocide is wrong.
This shouldn't be rocket science. Advocating for the death or oppression of any group "just 'cause" is wrong. People shouldn't do it. Their behavior shouldn't be condoned, or excused as "they don't really mean it", or "they're not really going to do it", or "other people have it worse".
Personally, I've never advocated for genocide, and never defended anyone who advocates for genocide. The idea horrifies me.
Then you're not paying attention. See my other links.
> You can believe that both are bad, while also saying that one of the two is much, much worse to the point that the comparison is unjust.
Your argument comes across that advocating genocide isn't really that bad, because they don't really intend to do it, and anyways, the Holocaust was worse.
I find that entirely unconvincing. Morally bankrupt may be a better description.
Which is not, in fact, what I said. Or what I believe. But why let facts interfere with a good flamewar?
> you seem to believe it is invalid to point out that these situations are different and require different responses
You're missing my point. Which is explained in simple English FFS.
> The evidence you provide is an overtly anti-Semitic subreddit
Uh... no. You don't seem to be able to understand rhetoric or analogy.
No one in that subreddit advocates anti-semitism. Instead, they re-write hateful articles to show that they have the same tone and style as anti-semitic articles. And that both are wrong.
Your interpretation of these analogies is that the people are actually advocating the opinions they're mocking.
Which (again) entirely misses the point. Depressingly so.
> I see a world where the "oppression" of men takes the form of a handful of anecdotes of people saying mean things
Like advocating for the genocide of men? Which isn't entirely saying "mean things".
> The willful non-recognition that these are different types of issues that require different responses is naked bigotry.
I think your hostility comes from a point of view which prevents you from understanding what I've written.
I've tried to make it as clear as I can. Genocide is bad. Advocating for genocide is bad.
Anyone should be able to understand that.
Your point is that advocating for the genocide of some people isn't really that bad... because jewish people had it worse.
If you can't understand the immorality of such a statement, I have little more to say. If the only way you can defend such actions is to label me an anti-semite, well, that's your delusion. You're welcome to it.