5 ms·
Regardless of whether the person who wrote that should be fired, calling that post "hate speech" demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what hate
by deciplex 11y ago
Regardless of whether the person who wrote that should be fired, calling that post "hate speech" demonstrates a pretty fundamental misunderstanding of what hate speech is. It is not merely exclusionary speech, and it is not merely speech that singles out particular groups - only protected groups. Holding particular political views - no matter how popular or right they might be, and no matter how persecuted you may feel for holding them - does not qualify you as belonging to a protected group.
If you want to fire this person, fire them for misrepresenting the Mozilla organization in a public forum. Stating that the tech industry will be better off without feminists - while a pretty stupid opinion to have - is not even remotely "hate speech", and while it might make Chris Beard feel a little more righteous to call it that, it does not reflect well on his capacity for rational thought.
- MichaelGG 11y agoI was expecting some vitriol, but the comments left on that user now are pretty tame (perhaps there were bad ones that have been deleted). Rude, calling someone an asshole and mocking their fashion, but not even close to hate speech. Unless everyone that's made fun of Trump in the last month is also guilty of hate speech.
- spiffyman 11y agoI think you're using the wrong standard here. From Wikipedia: > Hate speech - outside the law, is speech that attacks a person or group on the basis of attributes such as gender, ethnic origin, religion, race, disability, or sexual orientation. "Marginalized political views" isn't in that list, but then again it doesn't purport to be a comprehensive list. However, it seems like you're relying on a particularly legalistic view of what "hate speech" is. Is hateful speech toward a group truly not "hate speech" until a legislative act deems the group protected? On face, that doesn't seem right. You're right about "hate speech" as a legal term, but I don't think the CEO of a non-profit speaking to his employees requires that level of scrutiny.
- deciplex 11y ago> You're right about "hate speech" as a legal term, but I don't think the CEO of a non-profit speaking to his employees requires that level of scrutiny. When you're talking about firing someone over a thing, it's a good idea to be precise IMO. FWIW I'd be totally fine if he had said that he intends to fire that employee for claiming represent Mozilla the organization (or at least its employees) in a public forum. But calling it "hate speech" dilutes the term. To my mind "Hate speech" != "hateful speech" - no?
- A_COMPUTER 11y agoIt's vague, it's expansive, its informal usage is frequently conflated with its legal usage. And all this is a feature of the term, not a bug.
- deciplex 11y agoA feature for who? I prefer precise language and being understood.
- 13thLetter 11y agoIt's not very good for being precise or understood, but it is quite good at being a weapon. The vaguer the definition of a crime, the easier it is to accuse your political opponents of it while minimizing equivalent or worse behavior by your allies.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- monstruoso 11y agoI disagree. I don't think it is a stupid opinion to have. Feminists do not add anything of value to the tech industry, they never have, they never will.
- michaelbuddy 11y agohere's something I agree with.