3 ms·

There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech. I like to think of it like this: your liberties to expre

by revx 10y ago

There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech. I like to think of it like this: your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin. I would disagree with firing someone for saying that they liked Trump. I would agree with firing someone for making racist, sexist, or otherwise derogatory comments toward a co-worker. I think that's what GrubHub's CEO is getting at.

smsm42 10y ago
He was talking not only about "hate speech" (though even this category has long since have been extended by some to include anything disagreeing with the Party Line) but about nationalism and policies of Trump in general, which has been wholesale called "hateful". Of course, one can read it as "I oppose the policies of Trump that I consider hateful but not ones that are not" but since no way of distinguishing between the two has been offered, I assume that was not the intent and surely not how most of the people read it. It reads as a wholesale denunciation of Trump and his supporters as hateful. Maybe it wasn't the intent, but in that case the nuance was lost somewhere on the way. In a message that instructs anybody who disagrees to resign the lack of nuance is not the best idea - unless that is exactly what the author meant.
fdsaaf 10y ago
> There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech No there is not. "Hate speech" is what liberals call inconvenient conservative speech. Approving all speech except "hate speech" is just declaring that you will censor speech you find disagreeable. The only legitimate speech restrictions are viewpoint-neutral no matter what the viewpoint.
- yequalsx 10y ago
  I think it would be best to delete your second sentence. Let's not delve too deeply into group A vs. group B. Your comment would be much better without it. You are right that hate speech is a charge that can get blown out of proportion. The question then becomes how to define it in a way that protects ideological differences.
- MaysonL 10y ago
  "You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa" is inconvenient conservative speech? You'll have a difficult time defending that statement.
  - masondixon 10y ago
    What if a black person said this to another black person? My point is that "hate speech" is not clear cut. Today, the left is using it to silence any opposition. If someone says "hate speech" is writing "Trump" on the ground with chalk, where does it end? How do you draw the line?
    - revx 10y ago
      I think I was pretty clear about where I draw the line. > your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin. I won't respect your opinion if it disrespects someone's existence.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    We are discussing these terms in a specific context of this email. Wild straw men arguments do not contribute to the discussion. Unless you can find someone saying, > You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa I would refrain from such bombast.
  - fdsaaf 10y ago
    That statement is absolutely protected speech.
    - revx 10y ago
      I think you're mistaking the purpose of the 1st amendment. Racist comments are protected speech in that the United States Government cannot arrest/imprison/etc. you for that kind of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions for your speech. New York is an at-will state, meaning there is no legal problem with this email. There is no protection for people getting fired for hate speech, just like there is no legal protection for people boycotting or refusing to work for companies that they disagree with.
generic_user 10y ago
> If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. That is clearly stating that if you have an ideological disagreement hand in your resignation. Contradicting the claim he supports 'ideological inclusion and tolerance' in the preceding paragraph. Nowhere in the text does the term 'hate speech' come up. He does make a reference to demeaning behaviour. That could easily mean ideological disagreement. If you find someones views on H1B visas demeaning they should hand in there resignation. Also he states, > we do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team. Again he states there is no tolerance for attitudes he may disagree with. Attitudes are simply ideas informed by ideology. What constitutes a hateful attitude could be any political disagreement of principle. Including voting for Trump. This seems like a fairly pointed address to Trump voters that they should hand in there resignation.
- inimino 10y ago
  It's confused. The paragraph previous to that is talking about protecting people from discrimination. If you read it charitably there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
  - generic_user 10y ago
    It reads like an emotion charged poorly proofread diary entry that could at some point be used as material for a company wide email. The fact that he just sent that out like it is on an impulse hints that there is a whole lot of reflective internal composure and professionalism filters that are missing. Thats not what you want to see in a CEO. The language is ambiguous and buzz wordy enough that angry Clinton supporters could take it as a call to purge there fellow colleagues. And likewise Trump supporters could see it as a call for them to resign. Overall, the damage this is going to do is precisely why you do not mix your personal politics and your business.
    - smsm42 10y ago
      This also reads as reflex virtue signaling based on being sure that everybody in the company shares the same ideology bubble as the author, because all decent people do. This is only too frequent occurrence. No nuance was considered because none was necessary to consider - since everybody (worth considering) agrees anyway.
tn13 10y ago
There is no such thing as hate-speech. Hate Speech is free speech too. Other than a credible threat every other expression is free speech. It is a fundamental right for all Americans to use homophobic, racist, sexist speech if they want to. It is also Grubhub CEO's right to fire anyone who he dislikes but then it cuts both ways. All conservatives must now abandon Grubhub. With 50% of population disliking Grubhub I bet CEO will lose his job in a day for being an as*hole.

by revx 10y ago

smsm42 10y ago

He was talking not only about "hate speech" (though even this category has long since have been extended by some to include anything disagreeing with the Party Line) but about nationalism and policies of Trump in general, which has been wholesale called "hateful". Of course, one can read it as "I oppose the policies of Trump that I consider hateful but not ones that are not" but since no way of distinguishing between the two has been offered, I assume that was not the intent and surely not how most of the people read it. It reads as a wholesale denunciation of Trump and his supporters as hateful. Maybe it wasn't the intent, but in that case the nuance was lost somewhere on the way. In a message that instructs anybody who disagrees to resign the lack of nuance is not the best idea - unless that is exactly what the author meant.

fdsaaf 10y ago

> There's a difference between respecting someone's ideological preference, and discouraging hate speech No there is not. "Hate speech" is what liberals call inconvenient conservative speech. Approving all speech except "hate speech" is just declaring that you will censor speech you find disagreeable. The only legitimate speech restrictions are viewpoint-neutral no matter what the viewpoint.

yequalsx 10y ago
I think it would be best to delete your second sentence. Let's not delve too deeply into group A vs. group B. Your comment would be much better without it. You are right that hate speech is a charge that can get blown out of proportion. The question then becomes how to define it in a way that protects ideological differences.
MaysonL 10y ago
"You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa" is inconvenient conservative speech? You'll have a difficult time defending that statement.
- masondixon 10y ago
  What if a black person said this to another black person? My point is that "hate speech" is not clear cut. Today, the left is using it to silence any opposition. If someone says "hate speech" is writing "Trump" on the ground with chalk, where does it end? How do you draw the line?
  - revx 10y ago
    I think I was pretty clear about where I draw the line. > your liberties to express ideology end where someone else's human rights begin. I won't respect your opinion if it disrespects someone's existence.
- generic_user 10y ago
  We are discussing these terms in a specific context of this email. Wild straw men arguments do not contribute to the discussion. Unless you can find someone saying, > You're a dirty monkey and should go back to Africa I would refrain from such bombast.
- fdsaaf 10y ago
  That statement is absolutely protected speech.
  - revx 10y ago
    I think you're mistaking the purpose of the 1st amendment. Racist comments are protected speech in that the United States Government cannot arrest/imprison/etc. you for that kind of speech. Freedom of speech does not mean freedom of repercussions for your speech. New York is an at-will state, meaning there is no legal problem with this email. There is no protection for people getting fired for hate speech, just like there is no legal protection for people boycotting or refusing to work for companies that they disagree with.

generic_user 10y ago

> If you do not agree with this statement then please reply to this email with your resignation because you have no place here. That is clearly stating that if you have an ideological disagreement hand in your resignation. Contradicting the claim he supports 'ideological inclusion and tolerance' in the preceding paragraph. Nowhere in the text does the term 'hate speech' come up. He does make a reference to demeaning behaviour. That could easily mean ideological disagreement. If you find someones views on H1B visas demeaning they should hand in there resignation. Also he states, > we do not tolerate hateful attitudes on our team. Again he states there is no tolerance for attitudes he may disagree with. Attitudes are simply ideas informed by ideology. What constitutes a hateful attitude could be any political disagreement of principle. Including voting for Trump. This seems like a fairly pointed address to Trump voters that they should hand in there resignation.

inimino 10y ago
It's confused. The paragraph previous to that is talking about protecting people from discrimination. If you read it charitably there's a perfectly reasonable interpretation. Of course, a CEO should write defensively even against uncharitable interpretation and this is a pretty spectacular failure on that level.
- generic_user 10y ago
  It reads like an emotion charged poorly proofread diary entry that could at some point be used as material for a company wide email. The fact that he just sent that out like it is on an impulse hints that there is a whole lot of reflective internal composure and professionalism filters that are missing. Thats not what you want to see in a CEO. The language is ambiguous and buzz wordy enough that angry Clinton supporters could take it as a call to purge there fellow colleagues. And likewise Trump supporters could see it as a call for them to resign. Overall, the damage this is going to do is precisely why you do not mix your personal politics and your business.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    This also reads as reflex virtue signaling based on being sure that everybody in the company shares the same ideology bubble as the author, because all decent people do. This is only too frequent occurrence. No nuance was considered because none was necessary to consider - since everybody (worth considering) agrees anyway.

tn13 10y ago

There is no such thing as hate-speech. Hate Speech is free speech too. Other than a credible threat every other expression is free speech. It is a fundamental right for all Americans to use homophobic, racist, sexist speech if they want to. It is also Grubhub CEO's right to fire anyone who he dislikes but then it cuts both ways. All conservatives must now abandon Grubhub. With 50% of population disliking Grubhub I bet CEO will lose his job in a day for being an as*hole.