Not all views deserve respect. Depending on what specific views they are talking about a lot of the ones circulating 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.
Things are in a very bad way...
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.
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.
* It is OK to have ideals that you work towards while knowing that you won't necessarily reach them.
* excluding that one time with Charles Sumner.
It's not a who, it's a what: context. To the degree it's a who, you're talking about the ethics of everybody within earshot, including the speaker.
From the article:
>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.
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.
He is free to start his own Facebook, Twitter, etc.
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.
I agree!
> The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.
I also agree!
However, I personally believe that if corporate censorship has a meaningful impact on the freedom of speech in a society then the fundamental problem is the amount of influence said corporation has on that society. The issue is the size and influence of the private entity - society-altering censorship is just a more visible manifestation of the root problem.
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.
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 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.
The poem was specifically about purging targets not aligned with the thought processes of those in power. When you leverage your power to come for the next group, and take them out of play with ostracization, ridicule, etc., or in the case of the actual nazis, murder and genocide, then you have abused your power and made other groups outside your group afraid.
This is the uncomfortable truth of the poem.
I personally cannot stand AJ and his kooks. But I am against deplatforming, as kooks tend to self-identify, and I want to know exactly where they are and what they are doing at all times.
I likewise don't think Jones or his ilk deserve a free spot on primetime television or editorial column in a major newspaper or journal, nor do I think any media network owes it anyone to the extent that they need to provide them with a platform. Seems more in that camp to me.
Now that we're here, I do disagree with using the poem to defend the ideological kin of those he was discussing. If the group hadn't listed Jones amongst their list of the prosecuted then this wouldn't be a point of concern for me, and I'd think you had a point by employing the poem.
I think we're getting off the subject of the main thread, and the discussion surrounding your latter point is another separate and rather large one. I'm not sure we'd get very far here. But cheers.
good point, do you feel this way about people who say 'punch a nazi'?
That being said, there is a very real difference in scale between a punch and assault with a lethal firearm.
A related example: Antifa.
When a group expressing an extreme ideology begins to use violence against those who oppose it, is it acceptable to use violence in retaliation?
Historically, the answer is "after a while, yes". But it's a slippery slope towards becoming that which you oppose.
That depends on whether assholes holding other political beliefs get banned at the same rate, or not.
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.
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.
>equal rights for women
>equal rights for people regardless of their sexuality
What is "this time"? The 1800s?
So ya, I think 1800s is a pretty fair (albeit satirical) statement/question.
Changing the law is one thing; changing culture and expectations is another.
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
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.
* anti-vaccination * anti-gmo
I have a few others, but it saddens me to admit I don't have enough faith that HN is free speech forum.
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.
For example, is economic inequality primarily natural or due to injustices? these things don’t have knowable answers - with current technology.
* 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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I disagree. Subtext and context are immensely important when judging a message like "all lives matter". Judging it based solely on the literal meaning is the strawman.
> 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.
"All Lives Matter" came about as a response specifically to "Black Lives Matter". What other possible reason could you have for saying "All Lives Matter" in response to "Black Lives Matter" if you don't think "Black Lives Matter" denies the worth of non-black lives?
I don't understand why you're so set on interpreting both "Black Lives Matter" and "All Lives Matter" as if they only meant what they literally said.
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.
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.
Look at the people saying "All lives matter", then look at the people saying "Black lives matter".
Lo, and you are enlightened my child.
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.
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.
Either wait I'm inclined to post here less and read the comments here less.
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.
This memo isn't about what Facebook allows on it's platforms it's about policing the views of it's employees.
On the other hand, how many Marxsists are hired into Wall Street companies, and what is their sway on the company culture?
On pain of Poe’s law, are you being sarcastic?
> Easily the majority of the US population
> would hold at least one of those views.
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.
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.
As a general rule, I lob complaints at private companies. So I care at lot if Company X is doing ill to society (what I consider ill, at any rate). Whether the government should step in is a separate, and more dangerous, issue to me.
This is not the case, I have discussed affirmative action and discrimination without repercussions (presumably what you're talking about). No policy I'm aware of prohibits it on HN.
I'm fine if an employee disagrees with me over how high income tax should be, or whether or not healthcare should be privatized. People are allowed to have different views. However if I think someone is intolerant, I don't want to help them. That kind of tolerance is tolerance in name only.
I wouldn't want to associate my business with, or financially support, an employee who, say, spends the weekends rallying to kick West Indians out of the country. Whether such rallies draw sparse, or teeming crowds, doesn't make a difference to me.
Congratulations, you've discovered why democracy is stupid.
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.
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 would fire anyone who held such a belief, as I would not trust them around female, gay, or ex-Muslim co-workers.
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.
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.
Point out one of these Sharia courts on Google maps please.
Islamic Sharia Council 34 Francis Rd, London E10 6PW, UK +44 20 8558 0581 https://goo.gl/maps/uVXqgkMMTYx
The Islamic Sharia Council is a community centre for Muslims in the local area, offering various services.
It has nothing to do with implementing Sharia law in an extra-judicial court.
Please stop with the fear-mongering.
If you don't believe me, take it from Trevor Phillips, the former UK minister who coined the term "Islamophobia."
https://www.newsweek.com/muslims-are-creating-nations-within...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-visit-to-islamic-england-1535...
There are no laws against that, or wearing religious clothing.
"I later saw the Islamic Shari’a Council of Leyton. This community has religious, educational, business and legal institutions to maintain a separate identity."
I don't have to tell you that for women, gay people, and ex-Muslims, this isn't great news. Sometimes facts like these can be uncomfortable, but if we ignore them, things don't improve and real people suffer.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/09/muslims-and-...
Disclaimer: I’m not Muslim, or from the regions described.
Such a person would almost certainly be wary of engaging in debate, however open and honest, with someone who came to their strong conclusions in the face of such easily available evidence to the contrary. You also have to remember that some people use the framework of an open and honest discussion to proselytize, or rant. The archetypical bigot who “wants a fair debate about immigration” while really just wanting to express their bigotry without getting heat for it is one example. The antisemite who talks in terms of “bankers” and “globalists” is another. It’s unfair, but we all have to share a world with them, and so even when we really want to have an open and honest conversation we have to go that extra mile to prove it in cases like these. Otherwise people who don’t act in good faith can effectively mount a DOS on our time and attention through our goodwill.
Edit: Downvotes in lieu of something to say is something I’m becoming depressingly familiar with here. I can see why some people revert to low-effort posting when it’s going to be met with zero-effort. Oh well, I’m not sure what I expected.
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.
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?