5 ms·

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real co

by mnm1 9y ago

This idea that all opinions are equal and need to be respected is ridiculous and needs to stop. Politics is real and political opinions and actions have real consequences. Not all political opinions should be respected. In fact, it's our duty as citizens to evaluate and mock / scorn the opinions of others that we see as toxic. No one is protected from this and people that think they are, are feeling entitled to something that they do not deserve. Protections of free speech apply to government actions only. This isn't a free speech case. Google can do whatever it wants, including firing the poster of the manifesto. If Google, for whatever reason or no reason, doesn't want such thinking in its organization, it should have no qualms about firing the poster. There is no safe space, except from the government, for political opinions. The poster should know that by know. People have been fired for way less. Many companies would not want a toxic person like that in their midst and that's perfectly fine. It creates a toxic workplace and brings everyone else down. That's a great reason to fire someone.

jblow 9y ago
I find pretty unconscionable this line of rhetoric, which I see a lot lately from people on the left: "this isn't a free speech issue, because it's not the government doing the censoring". I want to live in a society that embraces liberal values like freedom of expression. Preventing the government from encroaching on those values is a good idea. But if we then go and clamp down on those freedoms everywhere else, then it won't matter that the government doesn't do it -- nobody will be able to express themselves freely anyway. This seems to be the society that the 'progressives' want and it disturbs me enough to have completely alienated me from that movement, and I am far from the only one, so I don't know why they aren't stopping and questioning the efficacy of this philosophy right about now. If we are really a society that embraces liberal values, then we want those values to be upheld throughout the society, not just in the part explicitly controlled by laws.
- mnm1 9y ago
  So then the government should step in and provide protections against his firing? Should they tell Google, no you can't fire this guy even though you don't like him and he's bringing down the morale of your whole workforce? Should that apply to someone who might actually be a neo-Nazi or become one during an employment term? Should Google be forced to hire / unable to fire people tattooed with swastikas or ones that verbally support ISIS or any other number of despicable positions? And how is the government going to choose the right side of enforcement here? Company A wants to fire an employee for X and now we have government intervention to the utmost degree. Yeah, that's exactly the kind of society that "embraces liberal values like freedom of expression." No one has a right to a job or to not have their opinions trashed because they're stupid, cruel, or whatever they may be. If you're complaining that corporations have too much power, I agree, but that's a completely different point.
  - jblow 9y ago
    No, I didn't say anything of the kind. I am saying that this kind of mob shaming-and-silencing mentality is deplorable. And if you choose to engage in that, then you will alienate a lot of people, including many of the best people. I am not saying anything about government, and as I said in my previous posting, I find it weird that people keep jumping to this. We're talking about ethics, not law.
    - mnm1 9y ago
      At least we agree that some acts of expression are deplorable, just not which ones.
rcoveson 9y ago
Not implying that I agree with anything the author said, but could you give an example of a "toxic" quote from the original memo? I'm confused because your comment makes it sound like we're talking about some vitriolic diatribe, which isn't the case at all. Honestly, this whole thread could use more quotes from the original text. It's disturbing to me how much meta-conversation is being had about the author and his email without real examples. One of the biggest failings of the memo was its lack of citation where it was most needed; can we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?
- mnm1 9y ago
  That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.
  - rcoveson 9y ago
    I agree with you, but I would add to what you're saying by noting that this very thread and the opinions expressed in it, along with those expressed by the media, will influence Google's decision in a huge way. If a sufficient percentage of the general public considers this memo toxic and irredeemable, this guy could get fired (and I agree, that is absolutely Google's prerogative). On the other hand, if the pervasive opinion is that the views he expressed, wrong or right, were not expressed in an overly negative or aggressive way, Google is likely to keep their engineer. This isn't unlike The Oatmeal vs. Funnyjunk, or the United Airlines thing. The Internet and the opinions expressed on it really do make decisions for people, companies, juries, and the like.
    - mnm1 9y ago
      I agree that the opinions of the general public will influence that decision. To some extent, they should as they have always done. This is part of living in a society and sharing things electronically. One needs to be aware of this before sharing opinions, especially when they are specifically related to one's employment. This isn't a case of making a joke on Twitter and getting fired for it. His opinions also have an effect on his co workers and the whole company so I see no reason why this shouldn't be so. Imagine trying to work with this guy as a woman, knowing he thinks less of you simply because you're a woman. He really should have thought of this before sharing his rant or even putting it on a computer. He can't claim he doesn't know what happens to shared digital data (you can't control it) because he's a Google engineer.
thescribe 9y ago
I agree as long as your ideas are equally mocked. Otherwise your position boils down to "No one should be able to disagree with me as long as I say the topic is sensitive"
- mnm1 9y ago
  It's up to others how much they mock my ideas. No one can guarantee equality in the mocking, but yes all people should be free to mock, disagree, or respond however they wish to my ideas.
stefantalpalaru 9y ago
> Protections of free speech apply to government actions only. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."

by mnm1 9y ago

jblow 9y ago

I find pretty unconscionable this line of rhetoric, which I see a lot lately from people on the left: "this isn't a free speech issue, because it's not the government doing the censoring". I want to live in a society that embraces liberal values like freedom of expression. Preventing the government from encroaching on those values is a good idea. But if we then go and clamp down on those freedoms everywhere else, then it won't matter that the government doesn't do it -- nobody will be able to express themselves freely anyway. This seems to be the society that the 'progressives' want and it disturbs me enough to have completely alienated me from that movement, and I am far from the only one, so I don't know why they aren't stopping and questioning the efficacy of this philosophy right about now. If we are really a society that embraces liberal values, then we want those values to be upheld throughout the society, not just in the part explicitly controlled by laws.

mnm1 9y ago
So then the government should step in and provide protections against his firing? Should they tell Google, no you can't fire this guy even though you don't like him and he's bringing down the morale of your whole workforce? Should that apply to someone who might actually be a neo-Nazi or become one during an employment term? Should Google be forced to hire / unable to fire people tattooed with swastikas or ones that verbally support ISIS or any other number of despicable positions? And how is the government going to choose the right side of enforcement here? Company A wants to fire an employee for X and now we have government intervention to the utmost degree. Yeah, that's exactly the kind of society that "embraces liberal values like freedom of expression." No one has a right to a job or to not have their opinions trashed because they're stupid, cruel, or whatever they may be. If you're complaining that corporations have too much power, I agree, but that's a completely different point.
- jblow 9y ago
  No, I didn't say anything of the kind. I am saying that this kind of mob shaming-and-silencing mentality is deplorable. And if you choose to engage in that, then you will alienate a lot of people, including many of the best people. I am not saying anything about government, and as I said in my previous posting, I find it weird that people keep jumping to this. We're talking about ethics, not law.
  - mnm1 9y ago
    At least we agree that some acts of expression are deplorable, just not which ones.

rcoveson 9y ago

Not implying that I agree with anything the author said, but could you give an example of a "toxic" quote from the original memo? I'm confused because your comment makes it sound like we're talking about some vitriolic diatribe, which isn't the case at all. Honestly, this whole thread could use more quotes from the original text. It's disturbing to me how much meta-conversation is being had about the author and his email without real examples. One of the biggest failings of the memo was its lack of citation where it was most needed; can we not hold ourselves to a higher standard?

mnm1 9y ago
That's really up to Google to decide in this case. My personal opinion on whether his writings are toxic is irrelevant. It seems a lot of people are outraged by it, both in and out of Google. If Google does decide that this is toxic, even if just from a PR point of view, they should have no problem firing the guy. That's my point. Expressing opinions is not an action without consequences.
- rcoveson 9y ago
  I agree with you, but I would add to what you're saying by noting that this very thread and the opinions expressed in it, along with those expressed by the media, will influence Google's decision in a huge way. If a sufficient percentage of the general public considers this memo toxic and irredeemable, this guy could get fired (and I agree, that is absolutely Google's prerogative). On the other hand, if the pervasive opinion is that the views he expressed, wrong or right, were not expressed in an overly negative or aggressive way, Google is likely to keep their engineer. This isn't unlike The Oatmeal vs. Funnyjunk, or the United Airlines thing. The Internet and the opinions expressed on it really do make decisions for people, companies, juries, and the like.
  - mnm1 9y ago
    I agree that the opinions of the general public will influence that decision. To some extent, they should as they have always done. This is part of living in a society and sharing things electronically. One needs to be aware of this before sharing opinions, especially when they are specifically related to one's employment. This isn't a case of making a joke on Twitter and getting fired for it. His opinions also have an effect on his co workers and the whole company so I see no reason why this shouldn't be so. Imagine trying to work with this guy as a woman, knowing he thinks less of you simply because you're a woman. He really should have thought of this before sharing his rant or even putting it on a computer. He can't claim he doesn't know what happens to shared digital data (you can't control it) because he's a Google engineer.

thescribe 9y ago

I agree as long as your ideas are equally mocked. Otherwise your position boils down to "No one should be able to disagree with me as long as I say the topic is sensitive"

mnm1 9y ago
It's up to others how much they mock my ideas. No one can guarantee equality in the mocking, but yes all people should be free to mock, disagree, or respond however they wish to my ideas.

stefantalpalaru 9y ago

> Protections of free speech apply to government actions only. From the Universal Declaration of Human Rights: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers."