4 ms·

I'm fascinated by sentences like "He created a textbook hostile work environment." and "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences". I see them more and

I'm fascinated by sentences like "He created a textbook hostile work environment." and "Freedom of Speech is not Freedom from Consequences". I see them more and more, repeated verbatim, to justify why someone had to be removed from his social environment, or physically assaulted. Justifying physical violence from ideological reasons by repeating mantras. I tought I wouldn't see that in my lifetime, that it was a thing of the past. Reading of totalitarian societies I always wondered how it could happen, and now we see it develop right before our eyes. It is fascinating & terrifying.

macrael 9y ago
Please read the first article I linked. It's written by an employment lawyer! "Hostile work environment" is not a mantra, it has a legal definition that our justice system has been workshopping for decades. Please consider that this is actually a complicated area that many smart people have been arguing about and refining for years and years. The famous "fire in a theatre" example shows that there are limits to free speech, maybe this too isn't speech worth defending.
- icebraining 9y ago
  The famous "fire in a theatre" example was invented to justify censoring the distribution of flyers opposing the draft.
  - endominus 9y ago
    Additionally, it was later judged as unconstitutional.
  - macrael 9y ago
    Just so: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... I'll try and avoid "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech" in the future. :0 I really think it's worth reading the employment lawyer piece I linked, it's good to get the actual legal perspective on this whole situation.
    - akvadrako 9y ago
      Is it? Why? I think it's not a legal issue - clearly Google can fire him without cause. But it's a cultural issue; is it morally acceptable to still work at or with Google, even though they show this behavior? Personally, this pisses me off enough that I've switched to DuckDuckGo for the moment.
      - macrael 9y ago
        Please read the article I linked by an employment lawyer, it definitely is a legal issue. Choosing to not fire the employee would have opened them up to serious legal liability. Now, you can believe that the law is disastrously unjust and that a manifesto calling your colleagues' abilities into question based on their gender should not qualify as creating a hostile work environment, but I am curious if you would feel the same if the arguments had all been based on race instead of on gender? The most eye opening piece of advice I've received on these subjects has been to try and listen to and believe as many people from these disadvantaged groups as possible. Women and minorities all have rhyming stories of being discriminated against. Part of the nature of systematic discrimination is that it is mostly invisible to the majority that benefit from it. It has to be, because when we notice it, it feels wrong. The vast majority of women I've seen speak on the issue of this manifesto have said similar things: that they recognize the type of man who would write it, that they've had to deal with that type of man their whole careers, and that giving credence to his arguments by airing them in a company sanctioned forum is demoralizing, making their jobs more difficult, and making them feel more like outsiders to the company. I believe in the paradox of tolerance. In order to build a tolerant environment, there are some things that cannot be tolerated.
        jnwatson 9y ago
        "...that they recognize the type of man who would write it..." is the most illuminating phrase I've read from the left, and I'm terrified of it. That I can choose to have a coworker fired over my projection, from his writing, of his internal psychological state is new to me. The race to be the biggest victim makes sense to me now. That's awesome power.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- backpropaganda 9y ago
  From the link you shared, a hostile environment is "workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive". Pray tell us , which parts of "men and women are biologically different, and this may lead to differences in preferences and abilities, as a bunch of science suggests" are intimidation, ridicule or insult? He also makes it clear that he's talking about population level statistics, not individuals. It's perfectly allowed to say that "men take up more public space", then it should be perfectly allowed to talk about other traits found in women as well.
Boothroid 9y ago
I couldn't agree more, I think the level of left wing propaganda in the media is pretty terrifying. What reassures me is that most people seem to hold very different opinions than those the liberal media seem to be trying to indoctrinate. Personally I think you can find racial and sex differences if you look for them. The athletics world championships are on at the moment. What race wins most of the races? Why do we have separate men and women's events? And yet we are told that despite there being obvious physical differences, there are no differences in non-physical aptitude, and furthermore, even to ponder the idea is heretical. I don't get it. Do we really think that if differences were found we are about to start herding one race off to labour camps? Or ban men from going into child care because they don't have the natural aptitude for it? I always think it's worth questioning prevailing beliefs, at least within my own head.
- soundwave106 9y ago
  You can find differences between sexes / races / ethnicity, and I think it would be foolish to argue that there are no differences. I think it would be foolish to argue however environment and other factors are no influence either. Pulling apart which influences what is rather tricky, I think. One note I can think of, using your running analogy: focusing on the natural abilities at the very top of the echelon (or even just the pinpoint average) may ignore the massive spread of ability among the general population. Men are naturally going to typically be faster runners than women (larger heart sizes and stronger muscle density -- testosterone traits, in essence). However (and you can look at any mass-participation 5K to verify this), this ignores the wide spread. It is safe to say that your top male athlete will almost always outrun your top female athlete. I think it is also safe to say that a woman who extensively trains will almost always be able to outrun any man who simply shows up at a running event with zero training at all. Certainly there are differences in non-physical aptitude between the sexes, too; however, I also can imagine that there's a wide spread of innate ability here, too, with training also as a differential factor. I don't think pondering the idea should be some sort of heretical thing, no, but especially with this subject, you have to be careful. I think part of the reason there's a large amount of discomfort about this is part historical example (eg eugenics). If the conclusion drifts into "inferiority / superiority" angles, it can be used by powerful people to exploit tribalism to do awful things.

macrael 9y ago

Please read the first article I linked. It's written by an employment lawyer! "Hostile work environment" is not a mantra, it has a legal definition that our justice system has been workshopping for decades. Please consider that this is actually a complicated area that many smart people have been arguing about and refining for years and years. The famous "fire in a theatre" example shows that there are limits to free speech, maybe this too isn't speech worth defending.

icebraining 9y ago
The famous "fire in a theatre" example was invented to justify censoring the distribution of flyers opposing the draft.
- endominus 9y ago
  Additionally, it was later judged as unconstitutional.
- macrael 9y ago
  Just so: https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-time-to-stop-using-the-fire-in-a-crowded-theater-quote/264449/ https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/11/its-tim... I'll try and avoid "the most famous and pervasive lazy cheat in American dialogue about free speech" in the future. :0 I really think it's worth reading the employment lawyer piece I linked, it's good to get the actual legal perspective on this whole situation.
  - akvadrako 9y ago
    Is it? Why? I think it's not a legal issue - clearly Google can fire him without cause. But it's a cultural issue; is it morally acceptable to still work at or with Google, even though they show this behavior? Personally, this pisses me off enough that I've switched to DuckDuckGo for the moment.
    - macrael 9y ago
      Please read the article I linked by an employment lawyer, it definitely is a legal issue. Choosing to not fire the employee would have opened them up to serious legal liability. Now, you can believe that the law is disastrously unjust and that a manifesto calling your colleagues' abilities into question based on their gender should not qualify as creating a hostile work environment, but I am curious if you would feel the same if the arguments had all been based on race instead of on gender? The most eye opening piece of advice I've received on these subjects has been to try and listen to and believe as many people from these disadvantaged groups as possible. Women and minorities all have rhyming stories of being discriminated against. Part of the nature of systematic discrimination is that it is mostly invisible to the majority that benefit from it. It has to be, because when we notice it, it feels wrong. The vast majority of women I've seen speak on the issue of this manifesto have said similar things: that they recognize the type of man who would write it, that they've had to deal with that type of man their whole careers, and that giving credence to his arguments by airing them in a company sanctioned forum is demoralizing, making their jobs more difficult, and making them feel more like outsiders to the company. I believe in the paradox of tolerance. In order to build a tolerant environment, there are some things that cannot be tolerated.
      - jnwatson 9y ago
        "...that they recognize the type of man who would write it..." is the most illuminating phrase I've read from the left, and I'm terrified of it. That I can choose to have a coworker fired over my projection, from his writing, of his internal psychological state is new to me. The race to be the biggest victim makes sense to me now. That's awesome power.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
backpropaganda 9y ago
From the link you shared, a hostile environment is "workplace is permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult that is sufficiently severe or pervasive". Pray tell us , which parts of "men and women are biologically different, and this may lead to differences in preferences and abilities, as a bunch of science suggests" are intimidation, ridicule or insult? He also makes it clear that he's talking about population level statistics, not individuals. It's perfectly allowed to say that "men take up more public space", then it should be perfectly allowed to talk about other traits found in women as well.

Boothroid 9y ago

I couldn't agree more, I think the level of left wing propaganda in the media is pretty terrifying. What reassures me is that most people seem to hold very different opinions than those the liberal media seem to be trying to indoctrinate. Personally I think you can find racial and sex differences if you look for them. The athletics world championships are on at the moment. What race wins most of the races? Why do we have separate men and women's events? And yet we are told that despite there being obvious physical differences, there are no differences in non-physical aptitude, and furthermore, even to ponder the idea is heretical. I don't get it. Do we really think that if differences were found we are about to start herding one race off to labour camps? Or ban men from going into child care because they don't have the natural aptitude for it? I always think it's worth questioning prevailing beliefs, at least within my own head.

soundwave106 9y ago
You can find differences between sexes / races / ethnicity, and I think it would be foolish to argue that there are no differences. I think it would be foolish to argue however environment and other factors are no influence either. Pulling apart which influences what is rather tricky, I think. One note I can think of, using your running analogy: focusing on the natural abilities at the very top of the echelon (or even just the pinpoint average) may ignore the massive spread of ability among the general population. Men are naturally going to typically be faster runners than women (larger heart sizes and stronger muscle density -- testosterone traits, in essence). However (and you can look at any mass-participation 5K to verify this), this ignores the wide spread. It is safe to say that your top male athlete will almost always outrun your top female athlete. I think it is also safe to say that a woman who extensively trains will almost always be able to outrun any man who simply shows up at a running event with zero training at all. Certainly there are differences in non-physical aptitude between the sexes, too; however, I also can imagine that there's a wide spread of innate ability here, too, with training also as a differential factor. I don't think pondering the idea should be some sort of heretical thing, no, but especially with this subject, you have to be careful. I think part of the reason there's a large amount of discomfort about this is part historical example (eg eugenics). If the conclusion drifts into "inferiority / superiority" angles, it can be used by powerful people to exploit tribalism to do awful things.