7 ms·

Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagr

by sarbaz 7y ago

Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Should people be allowed to speak out against things that other people do, but that disagree with their sense of justice? I don't see how you can call it "arrogant" for people to act in accordance with their moral and ethical standards. We don't have the power to force the world do line up with our personal sense of justice. But we do have the power to make our lives and the lives of those around us more just, according to our own personal interpretation of that concept. Do you really think that striving for justice isn't OK?

einhverfr 7y ago
I think the problem is that the US has developed for various reasons (including a lack of discussing politics) a series of echo chambers and people don't connect politically beyond their echo chambers. In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. The first of course is the Neoliberal views of the Rainbow Capitalism camp that brought us Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If there is a second view it is the Business Liberalism view of the elite GOP members such as the Koch brothers. You aren't going to get the political concerns of rust-belt America, or the political concerns of black families down in Watts recognized, nor will you get the communitarianism of rural America in there either. And so that sense of justice gets warped, even regarding national issues of the US today. What happens when these things go world wide? Someone's sense of justice gets offended by economic orders where procreative/childrearing families hold businesses which are inherited and passed on to kids, and where there are solid gender roles associated (my kids' second culture for example)? I guess we better do what we can to make the world safe for American Capitalism to come in and liberate people from family expectations. But that means opening up such cultures to economic exploitation by foreign business and that harm is waved away as if it doesn't matter. The arrogance does matter, because the arrogance can easily lead to outright economic colonialism ("for their own good" as much now as a century ago). The way to hold it in check is for other viewpoints to actually be entertained and discussed.
- nickstinemates 7y ago
  > In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. I would argue that these are the only ones allowed.
  - einhverfr 7y ago
    In what sense allowed?
    - 80386 7y ago
      I used to hang out in predominantly Californian tech circles, and the atmosphere there was... not at all respectful of places that aren't California. It would have been a good career move for me to suck up to them. Some of them were serial founders who hired their friends, and others could've given useful referrals. But that'd come at the cost of being constantly insulted, hearing my family constantly insulted, and so on, and not being able to say anything in defense. I'm not interested in being around people who think everyone who isn't exactly like them is subhuman - even if cutting contact with them is a bad career move. Then again, that might be why they do that.
      - einhverfr 7y ago
        When I was in the US I used to have a big client in LA. When I would visit I would hang out with various immigrants when not working. There was a lovely Iranian family that owned a restaurant in the area of my client's office and we became friends. I developed a very strong appreciation for how stratified California social class was on issues like public transportation. Come to think of it I have been wondering why Sweden can have a really nice public transit system covering the entire country and California with less land, more people, and more tax dollars cannot. I bet that stratification is the answer.
    - iNate2000 7y ago
      Allowed by the echo chambers
LordFast 7y ago
Let me clarify: - A non-decision by Google management to not place limits on its internal culture is a decision in itself, and has consequences that we are currently experiencing. - "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. This is my personal belief. I believe there are other channels that are better designed to address those issues. - My belief on this subject is limited to the above.
- freshhawk 7y ago
  > "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. But since they do in reality, especially if they are profitable and thereby gain power, it seems like something that should be discussed. It would be great if they actually didn't have influence or power over justice, definitely, but they do.
  - scoobyyabbadoo 7y ago
    Why should a bunch of tech workers be administering justice? We've elected government officials to handle that.
    - pm90 7y ago
      They don’t.
      - remarkEon 7y ago
        The solution to that problem is a new government. Not to give Google corporate Sovereignty to replace it.
    - freshhawk 7y ago
      "Freedom is a verb", "citizenship", whichever of the many versions of the objection to that idea are all available. We elected officials to administrate it only, these ideals are done by everyone.
taway90210ca 7y ago
>> Do you really think that striving for justice isn't OK? The problem is that one person's justice is another person's genocide. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Consider the typical political discussion around Israel and Palestine. Both sides feel they are on the verge of being wiped out, with or without merit. Both sides feel they can do anything and everything to avoid that presumed outcome. "Striving for justice" means very different things to both sides. To a Palestinian mother who has seen, say, two toddlers shot to death, justice might mean killing the offender, a soldier. To an Israeli mother of the soldier, justice might mean killing the Palestinian mother before she kills the soldier (her son.) Details will vary, but suffice it to say, no view of this is pretty. You dont want to talk about that stuff in the office, because there is not going to be any just solution.
- bjourne 7y ago
  > You dont want to talk about that stuff in the office, because there is not going to be any just solution. There are going to be asshats in the office that can't handle being wrong or the fact that not everyone is sharing their views. Political discussions aren't toxic - immature people who can't handle disagreement are. It is not great that we are letting those people ruin the workplace for the rest of us. I'm pretty sure that's one of the main drivers behind the alt-right movement. People aren't discussing and sharing views because doing so is taboo and they risk losing their jobs. Instead, people just sit at home and read wildly spun news stories which they soak up because their critical thinking ability has been impaired due to lack of training.
  - erikpukinskis 7y ago
    It seems clear alt-right is being deliberately made to look bigger than it is. Same various “extreme leftists”. I fear you’re making a grave mistake by thinking the volume level is correlated with actual humans.
  - notzuck 7y ago
    Utter nonsense - the lack of politcal discourse at work does not result in worse politics generally. Politics at work has long been a no no at most companies and there's no evidence to show this has caused the rise of any extremism. Work is where you get your work done. There is no room for you opinions on Trump etc, whether positive or negative. Your political views can very easily marginalise others especially when you hold a majority view. You're asking why people that can't handle politics at work are 'ruining it for the rest of us'. May I turn the question around and why people that want to discuss politics at work are ruining it for the rest of us that don't?
RaceWon 7y ago
> Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Yes absolutely; because that is a what a True professional does when their job requires it.
JVIDEL 7y ago
>according to our own personal interpretation That's incredibly problematic

by sarbaz 7y ago

einhverfr 7y ago

I think the problem is that the US has developed for various reasons (including a lack of discussing politics) a series of echo chambers and people don't connect politically beyond their echo chambers. In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. The first of course is the Neoliberal views of the Rainbow Capitalism camp that brought us Hillary Clinton's candidacy. If there is a second view it is the Business Liberalism view of the elite GOP members such as the Koch brothers. You aren't going to get the political concerns of rust-belt America, or the political concerns of black families down in Watts recognized, nor will you get the communitarianism of rural America in there either. And so that sense of justice gets warped, even regarding national issues of the US today. What happens when these things go world wide? Someone's sense of justice gets offended by economic orders where procreative/childrearing families hold businesses which are inherited and passed on to kids, and where there are solid gender roles associated (my kids' second culture for example)? I guess we better do what we can to make the world safe for American Capitalism to come in and liberate people from family expectations. But that means opening up such cultures to economic exploitation by foreign business and that harm is waved away as if it doesn't matter. The arrogance does matter, because the arrogance can easily lead to outright economic colonialism ("for their own good" as much now as a century ago). The way to hold it in check is for other viewpoints to actually be entertained and discussed.

nickstinemates 7y ago
> In urban California, among software developers, you are likely to have one or two political views represented at most, and these represent a small racial and class-based cross-section of urban California. I would argue that these are the only ones allowed.
- einhverfr 7y ago
  In what sense allowed?
  - 80386 7y ago
    I used to hang out in predominantly Californian tech circles, and the atmosphere there was... not at all respectful of places that aren't California. It would have been a good career move for me to suck up to them. Some of them were serial founders who hired their friends, and others could've given useful referrals. But that'd come at the cost of being constantly insulted, hearing my family constantly insulted, and so on, and not being able to say anything in defense. I'm not interested in being around people who think everyone who isn't exactly like them is subhuman - even if cutting contact with them is a bad career move. Then again, that might be why they do that.
    - einhverfr 7y ago
      When I was in the US I used to have a big client in LA. When I would visit I would hang out with various immigrants when not working. There was a lovely Iranian family that owned a restaurant in the area of my client's office and we became friends. I developed a very strong appreciation for how stratified California social class was on issues like public transportation. Come to think of it I have been wondering why Sweden can have a really nice public transit system covering the entire country and California with less land, more people, and more tax dollars cannot. I bet that stratification is the answer.
  - iNate2000 7y ago
    Allowed by the echo chambers

LordFast 7y ago

Let me clarify: - A non-decision by Google management to not place limits on its internal culture is a decision in itself, and has consequences that we are currently experiencing. - "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. This is my personal belief. I believe there are other channels that are better designed to address those issues. - My belief on this subject is limited to the above.

freshhawk 7y ago
> "Justice" is not something for a profit-seeking company to have influence or power over. But since they do in reality, especially if they are profitable and thereby gain power, it seems like something that should be discussed. It would be great if they actually didn't have influence or power over justice, definitely, but they do.
- scoobyyabbadoo 7y ago
  Why should a bunch of tech workers be administering justice? We've elected government officials to handle that.
  - pm90 7y ago
    They don’t.
    - remarkEon 7y ago
      The solution to that problem is a new government. Not to give Google corporate Sovereignty to replace it.
  - freshhawk 7y ago
    "Freedom is a verb", "citizenship", whichever of the many versions of the objection to that idea are all available. We elected officials to administrate it only, these ideals are done by everyone.

taway90210ca 7y ago

>> Do you really think that striving for justice isn't OK? The problem is that one person's justice is another person's genocide. I'm exaggerating, but not by much. Consider the typical political discussion around Israel and Palestine. Both sides feel they are on the verge of being wiped out, with or without merit. Both sides feel they can do anything and everything to avoid that presumed outcome. "Striving for justice" means very different things to both sides. To a Palestinian mother who has seen, say, two toddlers shot to death, justice might mean killing the offender, a soldier. To an Israeli mother of the soldier, justice might mean killing the Palestinian mother before she kills the soldier (her son.) Details will vary, but suffice it to say, no view of this is pretty. You dont want to talk about that stuff in the office, because there is not going to be any just solution.

bjourne 7y ago
> You dont want to talk about that stuff in the office, because there is not going to be any just solution. There are going to be asshats in the office that can't handle being wrong or the fact that not everyone is sharing their views. Political discussions aren't toxic - immature people who can't handle disagreement are. It is not great that we are letting those people ruin the workplace for the rest of us. I'm pretty sure that's one of the main drivers behind the alt-right movement. People aren't discussing and sharing views because doing so is taboo and they risk losing their jobs. Instead, people just sit at home and read wildly spun news stories which they soak up because their critical thinking ability has been impaired due to lack of training.
- erikpukinskis 7y ago
  It seems clear alt-right is being deliberately made to look bigger than it is. Same various “extreme leftists”. I fear you’re making a grave mistake by thinking the volume level is correlated with actual humans.
- notzuck 7y ago
  Utter nonsense - the lack of politcal discourse at work does not result in worse politics generally. Politics at work has long been a no no at most companies and there's no evidence to show this has caused the rise of any extremism. Work is where you get your work done. There is no room for you opinions on Trump etc, whether positive or negative. Your political views can very easily marginalise others especially when you hold a majority view. You're asking why people that can't handle politics at work are 'ruining it for the rest of us'. May I turn the question around and why people that want to discuss politics at work are ruining it for the rest of us that don't?

RaceWon 7y ago

> Should people act in ways that disagree with their sense of justice? Yes absolutely; because that is a what a True professional does when their job requires it.

JVIDEL 7y ago

>according to our own personal interpretation That's incredibly problematic