4 ms·

No, what the whole episode really seems to show is how prejudice that hurts people is viewed as "just words" rather than a tangible / real hurtful thing. You ca

No, what the whole episode really seems to show is how prejudice that hurts people is viewed as "just words" rather than a tangible / real hurtful thing. You can't curse off your boss. You can't demean people of other genders and races at work. You can't create a hostile workplace environment and expect nothing to happen to you. You can try to cloak it in a longform "civil" or "facts-based" document but ultimately what this man wrote was sexist lies a.k.a a steaming pile of shit. FWIW I don't give flat earthers the time of day or try to humor them as being scientific either. You have to go back to arguing the basic laws of kinematics with them. Sexists are one of the same.

naturalgradient 9y ago
This is authoritarian logic. A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system. Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity. If you go down this road, there is only one destination. I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibly mental expenditure to not follow that style of thinking.
- kajecounterhack 9y ago
  No, it's "treat others the way you want to be treated" logic. A.k.a basic human fucking decency You're misinterpreting freedom here. It's not authoritarian to have rules. The existence of rules and enforcement != authoritarian. If trump makes all the rules absent of the peoples' will, that's authoritarian. If society agrees that you're a net negative and makes a choice to ostracize you, that's the level of freedom we have under democracy. The golden rule isn't a high bar.
- rifung 9y ago
  I'm not sure I understand your point so please correct me if I misunderstand, but the person wasn't fired for having a different opinion. He was fired for saying things which were deeply hurtful for a large number of employees.
  - oskbor 9y ago
    Have you even read his text? Please quote the "deeply hurtful" passages
    - rifung 9y ago
      I have but I can't quote anything because I wasn't offended. Other people were clearly hurt by it though and I don't believe I'm in a position where I should tell other people what they should or shouldn't feel.
      - jshevek 9y ago
        We are all responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of claims of being hurt by someone. Otherwise dishonest or mentally unwell people hold us all hostage to their arbitrary claims.
        rifung 9y ago
        > We are all responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of claims of being hurt by someone. Otherwise dishonest or mentally unwell people hold us all hostage to their arbitrary claims. If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness. As for dishonest people, I suppose I like to believe I can believe other Googlers, especially when there are so many of them in this case who were upset by this.
        jshevek 9y ago
        Thank you for pointing out flaws of ambiguity in my comment. > If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness. I meant only to reference the variations in tendency towards certain mental behaviors (such as accurately assessing reality, or taking responsibility for emotional responses) that exist among people. I gave an example of the "mentally unwell" to illustrate that this spectrum exist, but all parts of the spectrum are worth considering. As an aside, and to hopefully show I'm not brushing with too wide a brush here: people with mental disorders are, sometimes, actually far better (at, say, having an accurate view of events) than people who don't have disorders, because they have [in the course of learning to cope with their issues, have also] learned to understand and correct for flaws that we all have. I did not mean to suggest that people with mental disorders should automatically have their opinion/experience/claims discounted! We should evaluate each situation individually. But there are clearly cases where a person's claim of "being hurt" should not be allowed to influence certain decisions, or policy, regardless of their overall mental/emotional functioning.

naturalgradient 9y ago

This is authoritarian logic. A threat is never just an opinion in authoritarian thinking. It's outside of what constitutes an opinion, it's outside the system. Hence, for the greater good, it must be not just be rejected, it must be destroyed as a moral necessity. If you go down this road, there is only one destination. I can sympathise with your view point. Of course I can. That is my whole point. It takes incredibly mental expenditure to not follow that style of thinking.

kajecounterhack 9y ago
No, it's "treat others the way you want to be treated" logic. A.k.a basic human fucking decency You're misinterpreting freedom here. It's not authoritarian to have rules. The existence of rules and enforcement != authoritarian. If trump makes all the rules absent of the peoples' will, that's authoritarian. If society agrees that you're a net negative and makes a choice to ostracize you, that's the level of freedom we have under democracy. The golden rule isn't a high bar.
rifung 9y ago
I'm not sure I understand your point so please correct me if I misunderstand, but the person wasn't fired for having a different opinion. He was fired for saying things which were deeply hurtful for a large number of employees.
- oskbor 9y ago
  Have you even read his text? Please quote the "deeply hurtful" passages
  - rifung 9y ago
    I have but I can't quote anything because I wasn't offended. Other people were clearly hurt by it though and I don't believe I'm in a position where I should tell other people what they should or shouldn't feel.
    - jshevek 9y ago
      We are all responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of claims of being hurt by someone. Otherwise dishonest or mentally unwell people hold us all hostage to their arbitrary claims.
      - rifung 9y ago
        > We are all responsible for evaluating the reasonableness of claims of being hurt by someone. Otherwise dishonest or mentally unwell people hold us all hostage to their arbitrary claims. If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness. As for dishonest people, I suppose I like to believe I can believe other Googlers, especially when there are so many of them in this case who were upset by this.
        jshevek 9y ago
        Thank you for pointing out flaws of ambiguity in my comment. > If they are mentally unwell, it doesn't make their suffering any less real does it? I admit I am biased as someone with a mental illness, I wouldn't want someone to disregard my opinion based on knowledge of my illness. I meant only to reference the variations in tendency towards certain mental behaviors (such as accurately assessing reality, or taking responsibility for emotional responses) that exist among people. I gave an example of the "mentally unwell" to illustrate that this spectrum exist, but all parts of the spectrum are worth considering. As an aside, and to hopefully show I'm not brushing with too wide a brush here: people with mental disorders are, sometimes, actually far better (at, say, having an accurate view of events) than people who don't have disorders, because they have [in the course of learning to cope with their issues, have also] learned to understand and correct for flaws that we all have. I did not mean to suggest that people with mental disorders should automatically have their opinion/experience/claims discounted! We should evaluate each situation individually. But there are clearly cases where a person's claim of "being hurt" should not be allowed to influence certain decisions, or policy, regardless of their overall mental/emotional functioning.