Context: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/15/22232766/github-employees...
I can’t believe people talk like this on a work public channel.
Context: https://www.theverge.com/2021/1/15/22232766/github-employees...
I can’t believe people talk like this on a work public channel.
In the companies I've worked here in Europe, such discussions just would not happen in a cooperate chat room.
It's disrespectful to the people who were imprisoned, tortured and exterminated by the real Nazis.
Hacker News has a huge global audience. Conservatism means something very different in all parts of the world. I assume you mean Republicans in America? Just to give you context, here in Europe we would consider the Democrats in the US a right conservative party and Republicans a far right party. Conservatives in Europe would be considered far left in the US, because in Europe even the most conservative person would still be in favour or public healthcare, pro gun laws and support many things like rent control or minimum wage. If you try to associate conservatism with American far right groups it only shows your own narrow minded "conservative" understanding of the world.
> Conservative Jews also hate Nazis.
Tell that to Stephen Miller.
Also, vindicated means “proven correct”.
Just the reasoning that tends to get a bit muddy - for race/country/flag/god/people. I think the line tends to be when somebody starts mentioning 'the enemy' - and points to some formerly-considered-random guy nearby.
The guy in the yellow shirt is Jason Tankersley, founder of the Maryland Skinheads. The guy to his right in the mask is Matthew Heimbach, former leader of the Traditionalist Workers Party (a neo nazi org).
This wasn't an exaggeration, a high number of literal neo nazi leaders were present.
Yes, it wasn’t nearly as bad as it could have been. But don’t kid yourself into thinking that their goal was just to take selfies in the Senate chambers. The only reason we didn’t see much more violence is that congresspeople were evacuated in time.
Tomp ignoring the churches that get shot up and bombed, the synagogues that get shot up, the mosques that get fire bombed.
The emotions and opinions exist in all workplaces. Some are just open to it and others not. The important part is being respectful and having empathy.
The second employee was arguing in obvious bad faith, that apparently being accepted (to the point of the first being fired) is what should make people uncomfortable.
People in US are broadcasting hypocrisy onto the world.
None can feel safe.
America is large country, half a continent. The existence of people and companies with widely different standards within it should be expected. That does not make it hypocritical.
Also, you treat Nazi as slur, but it is not one. It is political group.
I’ve been a European in American companies where saying “I don’t like that VP” in public would raise serious eyebrows, and I’ve been part of other American companies where saying “the VP Product is a fucking idiot” in public would make everyone laugh. It’s not the first time I hear GitHub fancies itself to be a bit edgy in culture, and I’m personally not into it, but it doesn’t make them hypocritical because some other guy you know, and you need to put in the same bucket, is different.
Not sure if you're referring to the instance of the egregious anti-Semitic joke (CW for that link, btw), or to the bulk of the communications, but for any who feel the latter, that any conversation involving Nazism is improper, I'd consider a counterpoint:
We're in an industry where it's very easy for our work to be used for horrible things, where indeed there are historical examples of technology being used to accelerate the operations of genocide, and it's not only appropriate but essential that the employees of companies be allowed to call out fascism, and express their fear and dismay of Nazis, to colleagues whenever they see it, regardless of whether it is immediately linked to a product initiative.
The comment that states "you dont see 'commie' being dropped in the workplace nor should 'nazi,' it's just slandering" is the false equivalency of the century, and if we can't distinguish between words that over-simplify a political ideology, vs. words that concisely warn colleagues that something is going beyond political ideology and towards a pattern of racially-motivated behavior that places people in grave danger, we haven't learned our lessons from history.
I'm sure Christians or other religious sects feel that it's essential that they proselytize their gospel to you, but I don't think you'd be very happy if you were getting bombarded with messages about it at work.
There's really no reason the kinds of conversations linked above should be happening with frequency in a company chat room. If you want to be an activist, great. Do it after hours.
Though by that ludicrous logic you can say anything is company business. Saving an employees morality is absolutely important to a company from a Christians prospective. So is preventing them from dying, so surely you're okay with people harassing you at work about skydiving or rock climbing or drug use?
Clearly these can affect your performance at work, so it's completely fine to proselytize at work.
Almost as long of a jump as "I'm scared for your safety for a riot that occurred a week ago, so I need to retroactively warn you about Nazis"
> it's not only appropriate but essential that the employees of companies be allowed to call out fascism, and express their fear and dismay of Nazis, to colleagues whenever they see it
Fascism is the reprehensible government structure du jour but I think it's wrong to be single-sided here. Employees should be allowed to call out things they disagree with. It doesn't necessarily mean anything will happen, and they end up leaving the company because of it. But I do think there are quite a few conservative, non-fascist, anti-Nazi people who will read a "employees can call out fascism!" comment and feel at least a bit like it's meant toward them as more conservative that most people in tech. I was a #nevertrump Republican throughout the primary and changed my party registration the day after his nomination. I think he's done 10x the damage to conservatism than Nixon ever could have. But I'm sure there are people here who, because I was a registered Republican during the Obama administration, view me as a fascist. I'm positive there are people who are registered Republicans today who hate what Trump is doing (both to the party and to the country), working in tech, and reading HN right now.
> regardless of whether it is immediately linked to a product initiative
This I'm not so sure about. I mean GitHub exists to ship software, and for the most part if you're communicating over a GitHub channel it should probably be about that. The fact that they have DEI channels and race-based channels and such on the official Slack in the first place is probably a larger discussion in itself.
> The comment that states "you dont see 'commie' being dropped in the workplace nor should 'nazi,' it's just slandering" is the false equivalency of the century, and if we can't distinguish between words that over-simplify a political ideology, vs. words that concisely warn colleagues that something is going beyond political ideology and towards a pattern of racially-motivated behavior that places people in grave danger, we haven't learned our lessons from history.
With regard to the 6th specifically, absolutely agree.
With regard to the language more generally, though, you're assuming that "commie" is always an over-simplification and "nazi" never is. Something actually are communism, which is responsible for a couple hundred million deaths historically, so while not directly racially related, it's not exactly a great thing. Commie also doesn't have quite the negative connotation of Nazi, and rightfully so. So even arguing the point feels a little like arguing about "cracker" vs. the n word. One is obviously worse, regardless of context.
That's a problem for the definitely anti-fascist, anti-Nazi to sort out with themselves. Why do they identify with fascism in this context? Is it because they have openly labelled the BLM movement as a terrorist organisation? Is it because they cheered when protesters were deliberately run over or shot?
> I think [Trump has] done 10x the damage to conservatism than Nixon ever could have.
IMHO this is because of the number of Conservatives who followed him. It's not Trump's fault, though he's an easy scapegoat. Trump certainly empowered a lot of people to express opinions and perform actions they otherwise wouldn't have, but Trump didn't make those people say those things or behave that way.
If Trump is prosecuted and imprisoned, that will be a great start. There will be many people who will see Trump imprisoned, dust their hands off and say, "well, job's done, that's fascism in the USA dealt with," only to be shocked when it turns out that jailing Trump didn't actually solve anything and the USA continues to suffer problems such as entrenched white supremacy in the police forces around the USA, crony capitalism in all levels of government, and political parties acting in their own selfish interest.
That comment about slandering is a bs and a person making it is a hypocrite. There were people, whose clothes literally manifested that they were Nazis. Camp Auschwitz, 6MWE, there is no guesswork, they themselves declared that they are Nazis.
For calling, erm, Nazis Nazis? (and yes, given the photos of the event that monicker can be applied to some people present there)
No wonder the head of HR quit, this is such top level corporate PR BS that it's hard to justify.
It is a well-documented fact that neo-nazi hate groups were a significant presence in the riot and preceding "protest" at the capital. Stating that fact ultimately lead to a nazi-apologist coworker denying it, and then the jewish employee being fired.
Where?
>The current conflict began the day of the riots in Washington, DC when a Jewish employee told co-workers: “stay safe homies, nazis are about.” Some colleagues took offense to the language, although neo-Nazi organizations were, in fact, present at the riots. One engineer responded: “This is untasteful conduct for workplace [in my opinion], people have the right to protest period.”
Ctrl-F for that to see the screenshot with the full context.
It's so blatently wrong that it's hard to assume good faith.
It does not need to.
Yelling "Fire!" in a cinema hall does not need to be accompanied by precise instructions as to where said fire is burning. It's a warning, not a debate.
I am having trouble adjusting to a reality in which I am the first to express this quibble.
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/libel-vs-slander-dif...