4 ms·

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.

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.
        9y ago
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    We can start from the implication that it's natural there are less women in the profession because most of them are biologically unsuited to it. Now replace woman with black (or Jew) and see what happens. Do you still think it's OK?
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - flukus 9y ago
      If it was true then yes. If you find reality offensive then that's your problem to deal with.
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        Is it true?
        notdonspaulding 9y ago
        Yes. - There are fewer white men in the NBA because they are biologically unsuited to it. - There are fewer tall fighter pilots because they are biologically unsuited to it. - There are fewer women as pitchers in the MLB because they are biologically unsuited to it. These are descriptive statements about reality. The world in which we find ourselves. You may not like that world, you may think we should change the rules of that world, but it is the world as it exists today. Calling it out as such can not rationally be considered offensive.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        So, do you believe women are biologically unsuited to be software engineers?
    - slavak 9y ago
      His main point was that MORE of them were biologically UNINTERESTED in it, not that MOST of them were UNSUITED. And to your point... yes? If someone said a profession mostly working outside in the desert has less gingers in it because most of them are biologically unsuited for prolonged sun exposure, would you really take offense? This isn't phrenology we're discussing here. If you're discussing real, tangible biological differences backed while proper scientific research, while taking care to treat people as individuals and avoid generalizing based on the distribution mean, then what's actually the problem here?

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.
      - 9y ago
- rbanffy 9y ago
  We can start from the implication that it's natural there are less women in the profession because most of them are biologically unsuited to it. Now replace woman with black (or Jew) and see what happens. Do you still think it's OK?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - flukus 9y ago
    If it was true then yes. If you find reality offensive then that's your problem to deal with.
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      Is it true?
      - notdonspaulding 9y ago
        Yes. - There are fewer white men in the NBA because they are biologically unsuited to it. - There are fewer tall fighter pilots because they are biologically unsuited to it. - There are fewer women as pitchers in the MLB because they are biologically unsuited to it. These are descriptive statements about reality. The world in which we find ourselves. You may not like that world, you may think we should change the rules of that world, but it is the world as it exists today. Calling it out as such can not rationally be considered offensive.
        rbanffy 9y ago
        So, do you believe women are biologically unsuited to be software engineers?
  - slavak 9y ago
    His main point was that MORE of them were biologically UNINTERESTED in it, not that MOST of them were UNSUITED. And to your point... yes? If someone said a profession mostly working outside in the desert has less gingers in it because most of them are biologically unsuited for prolonged sun exposure, would you really take offense? This isn't phrenology we're discussing here. If you're discussing real, tangible biological differences backed while proper scientific research, while taking care to treat people as individuals and avoid generalizing based on the distribution mean, then what's actually the problem here?