Hacker News Reader

Comment by eropple | Hacker News Reader

It is telling that, when a yes-or-no question is offered, the regressive tech contingent cannot stop themselves from posting and yet also can't answer the question.

To address the but-for in better faith than it deserves: as a cis white dude, I absolutely do not care what a tech leader says about much of anything. I do care what my co-workers say and believe, but my co-workers are not of a political, religious, or cultural persuasion that implies that I should be killed for being a cis white dude, and I would expect my employer to do something about it if that were the case.

Wouldn't you?

So, let's try again: queer people should be expected to work with those who believe that they should be killed for being queer. Yes or no?

View on HN

Have you stopped beating your dog? Yes or no?

> So, let's try again: queer people should be expected to work with those who believe that they should be killed for being queer. Yes or no?

No. But what does this have to do with DEI programs? Is the expectation that people who want to kill queers all of the sudden see the light from a powerpoint provided by HR? Or do people who want to kill queers get so outraged by DEI programs that they quit?

I think, in many workplaces, if you express the serious desire to kill a coworker, you will be fired, regardless if the reason is because of some protected class, or they just hate blue eyed people, or whatever.

No. If someone has publicly said that they think queer people should be killed, or if they tell their coworkers that they believe that, most would consider that reasonable grounds for termination, and also likely against the law (depending on phrasing and jurisdiction.)

However, I'm curious about this: "my co-workers are not of a political, religious, or cultural persuasion that implies I should be killed". If someone is a Muslim from Iran, is that sufficient evidence that they think queer people should be killed? If someone donated to a senator who is against immigration, is it sufficient evidence that they hate immigrants?

The interesting and unstated part of the question is, how do we know what a person believes? What's the threshold of evidence needed to condemn someone as a bigot? And who should be making this call?

I guess it‘s more telling if people try to use rhetoric devices like trying to force charged, binary answers on a very nuanced, and definitely nonbinary topic.

You like painting people into a corner, do you?

Rhetoric question.

> as a cis white dude

Speaking like this reveals that you are part of the subculture obsessed with gender identity. If you talked this way to me at work, I certainly would not want to associate with you. I do not go to work for exposure to this type of non-sense.

You shouldn't be forced to work with racists and sexists, it's your right to demand such people be removed from the company.

The thing is today we know race is pseudoscience and doesn't actually exist. It's an outdated idea that's been proven completely wrong by advances in genome sequencing. The problem is many do not understand this because they don't understand nor care about science, they care more about feelings. That shouldn't be your problem though, because ultimately a racially and sexually charged atmosphere at work creates a toxic environment that makes it hard to work and may even affect your mental health. No one can be forced to tolerate that.

Of course being racist and sexist isn't illegal per se, but companies can use this as grounds for termination. As they should where coworkers are harassed.

Yes, if those opinions aren't talked about at work then it's irrelevant

Reply on news.ycombinator.com