38 ms·

The following views were listed on the memo: * Support of President Trump (e.g. Thiel's and Palmer Lucky's campaign contributions) * "All lives matter" * Cri

The following views were listed on the memo: * Support of President Trump (e.g. Thiel's and Palmer Lucky's campaign contributions) * "All lives matter" * Criticism of Islam's human rights record. * Calling the company's art politically radical . Which, if any, of these views don't deserve respect?

brainkim 8y ago
The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and absent mitigating circumstances I’d consider firing people who held them. Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel given everything that’s been going on these days.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Criticizing of Islam's human rights record is deeply problematic. I’d consider firing people who do it. On pain of Poe’s law, are you being sarcastic?
- vimy 8y ago
  You equal criticising religion to white supremacy? That's really troubling.
  - fake-name 8y ago
    Specifically singling out islam is very, very strongly correlated with it, so yes.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Actually, specifically singling out Islam is only logical because it is the largest group of people with whom these issues are associated.
  - webkike 8y ago
    Critcism of Islam is almost always qualified with "and that's why we shouldn't let them into our country"
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Then say what you really mean: criticism of Islam is okay, discrimination against Muslims is not.
- manfredo 8y ago
  This is exactly the kind of intolerance this memo is advocating against. If you genuinely would fire all the 45% of people that voted for Trump, anyone who disapproves of the rhetoric of BLM, or considers Islam to have a poor human rights record then I would suggest you take a look in mirror before trying to find intolerance in your employees. Easily the majority of the US population would hold at least one of those views. Heck, even the first almost brings it to 50%.
  - charlesism 8y ago
    > Easily the majority of the US population > would hold at least one of those views. If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical. I won't insult you by bringing up obvious examples from American history. If you want to calibrate your moral compass, the right way to do it isn't always a show of hands.
    - manfredo 8y ago
      Sure, but saying you'd fire the majority of the US population in the name of tolerance is absolutely contradictory. The notion that a blanket firing of 45% of the adult population is an act of tolerance is ridiculous. Sure I do think there are some views that should not be tolerated and employees who advocate them should be removed - none of the four listed there come close to it, though.
      - charlesism 8y ago
        > The notion that a blanket firing of > 45% of the adult population is an act > of tolerance is ridiculous. Nope. It's perfectly moral, logical, and whether it's 45%, or 1%, or 99% makes no difference. The examples from history are too numerous to mention. You have to decide what your values are and stand by them.
        manfredo 8y ago
        I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about tolerance. Only tolerating the things you think are morally right isn't tolerance - quite the opposite. Tolerance entails tolerating things even when you don't find them morally right. For instance, I think a closed border is morally bad - it's still an act of intolerance if I were to fire someone for supporting enforcement of immigration laws. This warped definition of tolerance particularly worried me. The growing notion that tolerance means snuffing out views one disapproves of, rather than tolerating them is the root of much of the growing political division in my opinion. And not to mention, there's a big risk that this will hurt liberals in the long run. It's easy to forget that this line of thinking also empowers conservatives to snuff out views they don't like - and look at who's in control of the White House, Congress, and (likely soon to be) the Supreme Court.
- _iyig 8y ago
  I don’t agree that all criticism of misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy is driven by “deeply-rooted white supremacy.” I would fire anyone who held such a belief, as I would not trust them around female, gay, or ex-Muslim co-workers.
  - bodas 8y ago
    A straw man would probably not be a very effective employee anyway.
    - _iyig 8y ago
      If you feel I’ve misunderstood your comment, or that you did not fully articulate your point, please feel free to elaborate. I’m not overly swayed or impressed by drive-by disparagement.
      - bodas 8y ago
        > misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy It is a caricature. You have been reading the internet too much and spent too little time talking to actual Muslim people. However, if you find out that one of your employees is a member of the taliban, feel free to fire him.
        _iyig 8y ago
        There are 13 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is punishable by death, including Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan only imposes the death sentence for blasphemy. The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true) I’ve heard horror stories of ex-Muslims in the US who were kidnapped and physically abused by their family when they tried to leave Islam. Between mass-rape attacks in Germany, the many, many grooming gangs in the UK, and the latest sexual assault statistics from Sweden, I think it’s fair to take a skeptical eye towards mainstream Islamic male culture. Moderate and reformist Muslims in the West, for context, comprise a small majority of the faithful. The Christian and Jewish faiths have reformed and lightened up with the liberalization of Western society. I think it’s fair to expect and allow adherents to the Islamic faith to walk a similar path. EDIT: And for the record, I get along great with my Muslim co-workers. Please stop moving goalposts; to reiterate, your premise was that criticism of Islam's human rights record is driven by deep-rooted white supremacy.
- chimpburger 8y ago
  You are deeply and profoundly irrational. Feeling without thinking.
- Tycho 8y ago
  Sufficiently advanced liberalism is indistinguishable from satire.
some1else 8y ago
Views are free to be had, and command no respect whatsoever. I respect criticism of any human rights violation, the rest of the list doesn't pertain to me. I support the freedom of people to have those views, but also welcome the prudent choice of restricting the ability to utilize the most powerful medium of our time to spread hatred. Hate all you like, but you don't get the platform on the count of first amendment. Disclosure: I spent a bunch of time in 2016 and 2017 reporting European hate groups and pages for violations of TOS. Video montages that recycled unrelated footage for misinformation about the immigrant crisis (for fear-mongering purposes) weren't enough to achieve a takedown, but gradually most of them progressed far enough in their rhetoric, to objectively deserve removal (Look up European identity movements). Downvoters: I'm also talking about private Fb groups where assaults on asylums were organized.
- manfredo 8y ago
  Sure, not all views command respect, but would you actually fire an employee if a co-worker showed you records of a campaign distribution to Trump? Or if they showed you a post criticizing a Saudi cleric's views of women's rights or LGBT rights? This memo isn't about what Facebook allows on it's platforms it's about policing the views of it's employees.
  - some1else 8y ago
    The way I read the article is that HR told the complainers that everyone is entitled to their opinion. On the other hand, how many Marxsists are hired into Wall Street companies, and what is their sway on the company culture?
landryraccoon 8y ago
I'm genuinely curious what "All lives matter" stands for except for being opposed to the idea that "Black lives matter". There's a key difference here - "Black lives matter" attempts to point out that there is discrimination in law enforcement that seems to single out minorities. Correcting this discrimination would be good. What policy change does "All lives matter" advocate? Do those policy changes indeed benefit "all lives" or are they more designed to take away focus from legitimate problems minorities face due to racism or inequality? To be honest I quite suspect it is the latter, and that is why I frankly suspect that "All lives matter" is racist at it's core. After all, if the movement doesn't really advocate for policy changes that benefit all lives but instead is just a reaction to attempts to fix discrimination, that is pretty racist.
- tjr225 8y ago
  The fact that you're being downvoted indicates just how troubled and just how racist our society still is. Good luck all. Either hackernews has been infiltrated by a slew of far right wing posters or the general public has become so dumb that it's sweeping into this forum. Either wait I'm inclined to post here less and read the comments here less.
- manfredo 8y ago
  One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races. "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population (and thus, have better chances of creating change). It's viable to argue that sticking with the former is worth the exclusive rhetoric because Black people suffer disproportionately. But the notion of actually _firing_ someone over using "all lives matter" as the memo alleges seems absolutely insane.
  - emddudley 8y ago
    No, one could not argue that in any seriousness. All Lives Matter is being used primarily as an attempt to diminish Black Lives Matter.
    - 8y ago
mavelikara 8y ago
#2; it is an underhanded way to trivialize attempt by one group to draw attention to their struggles.

brainkim 8y ago

The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and absent mitigating circumstances I’d consider firing people who held them. Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel given everything that’s been going on these days.

antidesitter 8y ago
> Criticizing of Islam's human rights record is deeply problematic. I’d consider firing people who do it. On pain of Poe’s law, are you being sarcastic?
vimy 8y ago
You equal criticising religion to white supremacy? That's really troubling.
- fake-name 8y ago
  Specifically singling out islam is very, very strongly correlated with it, so yes.
  - mmirate 8y ago
    Actually, specifically singling out Islam is only logical because it is the largest group of people with whom these issues are associated.
- webkike 8y ago
  Critcism of Islam is almost always qualified with "and that's why we shouldn't let them into our country"
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Then say what you really mean: criticism of Islam is okay, discrimination against Muslims is not.
manfredo 8y ago
This is exactly the kind of intolerance this memo is advocating against. If you genuinely would fire all the 45% of people that voted for Trump, anyone who disapproves of the rhetoric of BLM, or considers Islam to have a poor human rights record then I would suggest you take a look in mirror before trying to find intolerance in your employees. Easily the majority of the US population would hold at least one of those views. Heck, even the first almost brings it to 50%.
- charlesism 8y ago
  > Easily the majority of the US population > would hold at least one of those views. If the majority of the country holds a philosophy that favors the majority of the country, that doesn't automatically make it ethical. I won't insult you by bringing up obvious examples from American history. If you want to calibrate your moral compass, the right way to do it isn't always a show of hands.
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Sure, but saying you'd fire the majority of the US population in the name of tolerance is absolutely contradictory. The notion that a blanket firing of 45% of the adult population is an act of tolerance is ridiculous. Sure I do think there are some views that should not be tolerated and employees who advocate them should be removed - none of the four listed there come close to it, though.
    - charlesism 8y ago
      > The notion that a blanket firing of > 45% of the adult population is an act > of tolerance is ridiculous. Nope. It's perfectly moral, logical, and whether it's 45%, or 1%, or 99% makes no difference. The examples from history are too numerous to mention. You have to decide what your values are and stand by them.
      - manfredo 8y ago
        I'm not talking about morality or ethics, I'm talking about tolerance. Only tolerating the things you think are morally right isn't tolerance - quite the opposite. Tolerance entails tolerating things even when you don't find them morally right. For instance, I think a closed border is morally bad - it's still an act of intolerance if I were to fire someone for supporting enforcement of immigration laws. This warped definition of tolerance particularly worried me. The growing notion that tolerance means snuffing out views one disapproves of, rather than tolerating them is the root of much of the growing political division in my opinion. And not to mention, there's a big risk that this will hurt liberals in the long run. It's easy to forget that this line of thinking also empowers conservatives to snuff out views they don't like - and look at who's in control of the White House, Congress, and (likely soon to be) the Supreme Court.
_iyig 8y ago
I don’t agree that all criticism of misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy is driven by “deeply-rooted white supremacy.” I would fire anyone who held such a belief, as I would not trust them around female, gay, or ex-Muslim co-workers.
- bodas 8y ago
  A straw man would probably not be a very effective employee anyway.
  - _iyig 8y ago
    If you feel I’ve misunderstood your comment, or that you did not fully articulate your point, please feel free to elaborate. I’m not overly swayed or impressed by drive-by disparagement.
    - bodas 8y ago
      > misogynistic divorce laws, violence against “immodest” women, and application of the death penalty for homosexuality or apostasy It is a caricature. You have been reading the internet too much and spent too little time talking to actual Muslim people. However, if you find out that one of your employees is a member of the taliban, feel free to fire him.
      - _iyig 8y ago
        There are 13 Muslim-majority countries where apostasy is punishable by death, including Malaysia, Iran, Nigeria, the UAE, Qatar, and Saudi Arabia. Pakistan only imposes the death sentence for blasphemy. The UK has many sharia courts which act as marriage and divorce authorities, where women often have far fewer rights than men. (This sounds hysterical and far-right-ish, but it’s true) I’ve heard horror stories of ex-Muslims in the US who were kidnapped and physically abused by their family when they tried to leave Islam. Between mass-rape attacks in Germany, the many, many grooming gangs in the UK, and the latest sexual assault statistics from Sweden, I think it’s fair to take a skeptical eye towards mainstream Islamic male culture. Moderate and reformist Muslims in the West, for context, comprise a small majority of the faithful. The Christian and Jewish faiths have reformed and lightened up with the liberalization of Western society. I think it’s fair to expect and allow adherents to the Islamic faith to walk a similar path. EDIT: And for the record, I get along great with my Muslim co-workers. Please stop moving goalposts; to reiterate, your premise was that criticism of Islam's human rights record is driven by deep-rooted white supremacy.
chimpburger 8y ago
You are deeply and profoundly irrational. Feeling without thinking.
Tycho 8y ago
Sufficiently advanced liberalism is indistinguishable from satire.

some1else 8y ago

Views are free to be had, and command no respect whatsoever. I respect criticism of any human rights violation, the rest of the list doesn't pertain to me. I support the freedom of people to have those views, but also welcome the prudent choice of restricting the ability to utilize the most powerful medium of our time to spread hatred. Hate all you like, but you don't get the platform on the count of first amendment. Disclosure: I spent a bunch of time in 2016 and 2017 reporting European hate groups and pages for violations of TOS. Video montages that recycled unrelated footage for misinformation about the immigrant crisis (for fear-mongering purposes) weren't enough to achieve a takedown, but gradually most of them progressed far enough in their rhetoric, to objectively deserve removal (Look up European identity movements). Downvoters: I'm also talking about private Fb groups where assaults on asylums were organized.

manfredo 8y ago
Sure, not all views command respect, but would you actually fire an employee if a co-worker showed you records of a campaign distribution to Trump? Or if they showed you a post criticizing a Saudi cleric's views of women's rights or LGBT rights? This memo isn't about what Facebook allows on it's platforms it's about policing the views of it's employees.
- some1else 8y ago
  The way I read the article is that HR told the complainers that everyone is entitled to their opinion. On the other hand, how many Marxsists are hired into Wall Street companies, and what is their sway on the company culture?

landryraccoon 8y ago

I'm genuinely curious what "All lives matter" stands for except for being opposed to the idea that "Black lives matter". There's a key difference here - "Black lives matter" attempts to point out that there is discrimination in law enforcement that seems to single out minorities. Correcting this discrimination would be good. What policy change does "All lives matter" advocate? Do those policy changes indeed benefit "all lives" or are they more designed to take away focus from legitimate problems minorities face due to racism or inequality? To be honest I quite suspect it is the latter, and that is why I frankly suspect that "All lives matter" is racist at it's core. After all, if the movement doesn't really advocate for policy changes that benefit all lives but instead is just a reaction to attempts to fix discrimination, that is pretty racist.

tjr225 8y ago
The fact that you're being downvoted indicates just how troubled and just how racist our society still is. Good luck all. Either hackernews has been infiltrated by a slew of far right wing posters or the general public has become so dumb that it's sweeping into this forum. Either wait I'm inclined to post here less and read the comments here less.
manfredo 8y ago
One could argue that "black lives matter" is exclusory to all other races. "All lives matter" is often meant as a means to include the rest of the population (and thus, have better chances of creating change). It's viable to argue that sticking with the former is worth the exclusive rhetoric because Black people suffer disproportionately. But the notion of actually _firing_ someone over using "all lives matter" as the memo alleges seems absolutely insane.
- emddudley 8y ago
  No, one could not argue that in any seriousness. All Lives Matter is being used primarily as an attempt to diminish Black Lives Matter.
  - 8y ago

mavelikara 8y ago

#2; it is an underhanded way to trivialize attempt by one group to draw attention to their struggles.