>Incelgate
can someone explain what this is?
can someone explain what this is?
For example: https://twitter.com/ekp/status/991817194987114496
Is she asking them to fire people for being sexually unattractive?
Incel means "someone who is a member of a group who have a pathological hatred of women and men who have sex with women, who think that they have a right to demand sex, and that if it's not provided they have a right to take it by force by rape". Pao is talking about this group.
Sure these communities are incredibly toxic, but I don't think it's fair to say that every member of them has all of the beliefs you describe. Most of these people are probably mentally ill, they need compassion and empathy, not to be purged from society.
How much more bitter and angry are they going to be if they start to feel like they're also excluded from having a job?
Sort of like the difference between "white people" and "white supremacists". Except that currently we don't have separate (reasonably brief) terms for the above categories.
There's nothing wrong with having employees who are unattractive / can't find sexual partners, and I agree that that would be just as ridiculous a criterion to fire someone over as being caucasian. However, if you have people in your company who are filled with vitriol or considering violence (be it because they hate women who won't sleep with them or because they hate people with a different skin color), that's a problem waiting to happen.
On an unrelated note: the "firing" time hasn't arrived yet, but not being hired just because you're Caucasian isn't that uncommon nowadays.
I personally find "people who hate people with a different skin colour" and "people who hate women" to be repulsive. I'd prefer not to work with those people, if possible. But I accept that in a free society, I might have to. I have no special right to be protected from opinions I don't like, and nor should I.
Nobody should be excluded from employment because of an opinion. And in a free society, it should never be illegal to state an opinion.
We are crossing the line into thought crime here, and it's frightening to see powerful people like Ellen Pao being ok with that.
In any given employment environment: chairs may be less than form-fitting; different people will have different tolerances for the thermostat setting; some employees may heat fish and durian fruit in the microwave; one may be asked to load or unload 40 foot shipping containers; being under pressure to meet a deadline is fairly normal; a boss or coworker may have an unpleasant personality, possibly even a personality disorder.
In general, we expect that in many ways, employment will be uncomfortable. In general, we accept this as a nominal cost of earning a living.
But once various ideologies are introduced, there is a sudden expectation that a small and specific subset of workplace interactions ought to be 100% pleasant and comfortable. Why is this?
It's not just about comfort (though personally I do think people have a right to a workplace where there coworkers would defend them against bodily harm rather than claim a right to inflict it). It's also about what's best for the business.
My starting point is I don't think what you say or do outside the workplace should have bearing on your employment. Lots of people have bad, crazy ideas that don't significantly affect their performance.
Please explain how. I think it's literally the worst idea to go poking people already on the edge with their hate and misery.
But objectively speaking, the incel viewpoint is more caustic than the common reaction to it. I'm not saying that people who identify as incels deserve it, but they really oughta know better.
This is essentially modern heresy in action. Social cohesion is far more important than both your obstinacy and your problems, and if you persist, we will burn your ass at the stake. It's ugly, it's sad, we wish we didn't have to do it, but it reflects the reality of society.
Wow, How do I make sure I never interact with your "society"? To me this attitude is strait out of Orwell and Huxley?
The "social cohesion" argument is too wide. It could have been applied in the past for example to suppress the women suffrage movement. What was more important the women suffrage or the social cohesion of the 1900 society? I like the women suffrage and I dislike the incel viewpoint, but I don't understand how can you apply the self censorship or get burn argument only to the things that you dislike.
This is even more serious than heresy, this is called apostasy. Apostates don't get stoned by their peers, they get crucified by the army. But sometimes civil war is necessary to improve the morality of society. Suffrage was one of those times.
It's the common people that adhere to the orthodoxy that does the burning. Not the censors or the inquisition, who had bigger fish to fry. You won't find me out there tarring and feathering incels.
I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to their viewpoint. What I'm not sympathetic at all to is their stubborn obstinacy. Feminism is more important than your sexual satisfaction.
The answer to the incel situation is sex positivism. There is no holy war needed here. Sex positivism is an orthodox solution. The heretics just need to come back to Jesus.