6 ms·

Would you please clarify what you mean by, "Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you'r

Would you please clarify what you mean by, "Because if you genuinely belief people want try to identify who is and isn't racist in a "conforming" way then you're delusional?" Here's the problem: at least in SV, you're going to be restricted to a sub-set of very narrow beliefs which are acceptable to express. I may hold a personal belief that, say, trans-sexuality is not a "real thing" or ought not to be treated with surgery. Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? You may believe my belief is just too "in-tolerant" or "bigoted" to be expressed, but who are you to be the arbiter thereof? Now let's take the other side of the coin. If you work in the energy industry, heavy manufacturing, etc., you probably couldn't express support for trans-sexuals without having problems. On the other hand, you'd likely have no issue saying you didn't believe in such a thing. I know someone in energy who wore a rainbow flag pin during one gay month a few years ago; he wasn't fired, but many of his superiors became noticeably cold toward him and he left after realizing he probably couldn't move up at that company. Again, why ought that to be the case? The biggest issue is that when people start talking politics, you are expected to participate. Some one looks over and says, "Hey Big Chungus, what do you think?" In such a situation, I cannot reasonably say, "Oh, I have no opinion." Certain issues are simply so partisan that such a response, even in the rare circumstance that it is true, will anger both sides and damage me. So, I avoid talking politics at work and try to work at places where others do the same. People I work with generally never know my politics. I am more than happy to bloviate about political stuff with friends and family, or to go be mad online after work. At work, it is best to stay non-partisan.

pjc50 7y ago
> Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? Should you be able to comfortably express that to your trans co-worker, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them? That's why this is not a symmetrical issue.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  What if you have a co-worker who is an Arab immigrant and does not believe in trans-sexuality due to his cultural and religious background? Should he be able to express that? Why or why not? Ought the trans-sexual to be able to express his beliefs if it makes said co-worker uncomfortable? When two deeply-held elements of personal identity are in conflict, the only way to resolve it is for both sides to keep silent or for a third party to insert himself and pick the side in which he believes. In either case, you are telling someone he must change who he is. The alternative is to simply not discuss such matters at work. And yes, I believe both sides have the right to express their beliefs and that the comfort of neither trumps the right of the other to speak. I just think time, place, and manner are generally reasonable constraints.
  - CompanionCuuube 7y ago
    Yes, not discussing it doesn't mean you can't accommodate them. Just because you don't discuss religion in the office doesn't prevent you from having halal/kosher meal options. Not discussing transgender issues doesn't prevent you from having a gender neutral bathroom.
- manigandham 7y ago
  The absolute answer is yes. You have a right to say it. Nobody is owed comfort. However this clearly won't lead to a productive workplace, which is why it's not a good idea to allow these discussions. There are plenty of other restrictions within a private company to create the best conditions for the work they're paying you for. It's perfectly reasonable.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Good to know that people believe in making work hostile for their marginalized colleagues. And people wonder why there are fewer women in this industry.
    - DuskStar 7y ago
      I think you missed the "and because allowing people to state the 'wrong' opinions would be bad, we'll ban expressing all the opinions" component of his statement.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      If you can't read past the first line then you're the evidence for why this policy is needed. Politics are making work hostile for everyone. Let's avoid them altogether.
      - pcnix 7y ago
        Where's your line on what constitutes politics then? Is a discussion on let's say patterns of harassment of female employees by senior staff and ways to avoid that a political discussion? Is a discussion of salary disparities at the company among employees of different genders and races a political discussion? The point is that instead of drawing a line around topics to say which ones are acceptable and which ones are not, there should be a line that says any discussion that causes harm/hurt to colleagues is frowned upon and to be avoided? It's quite easy to say let's avoid politics because it causes problems at work, but that stance ignores the nuance in the situation.
- TeMPOraL 7y ago
  Whether one gets uncomfortable hearing a statement isn't good evidence for whether that statement is correct or wrong. This asymmetry of feelings is actually an argument in favor of not talking about some topics at work, unless all involved parties voluntarily agree to it. A less controversial but essentially equivalent example would be religion. It's widely recognized that you shouldn't spend time at work trying to invalidate your co-worker's religious views (or lack of them), unless they specifically ask you to. This applies to everything people build their identities around.
- DuskStar 7y ago
  If you can have political discussion as long as you have the right opinions, that's not really a discussion is it? It's "affirm you agree with my political beliefs or be fired". And a few parallels - what do you do about the person who's afraid of being shot if the government comes to take their guns (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning that way), or the person who's afraid of their kids being shot at school (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning towards fewer restrictions on guns)? You can't satisfy both of them without banning discussion, and a lot of issues are like that.
  - pjc50 7y ago
    Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood.
    - tomp 7y ago
      Religion isn't intrinsic to the person but is a protected characteristic so in reality the line isn't where you claim it is.
      - TeMPOraL 7y ago
        Also, while characteristics defined by biology or history are not choices, identity to a large extent is.
      - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
        > Religion isn't intrinsic to the person ... Interestingly, even that statement takes a particular religious stance. Some branches of Christianity hold that a person does not choose to be Christian, but rather is chosen by God to be a Christian [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace
    - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
      > "Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood." Identity is whatever a person decides it is, according to progressive doctrine, therefore it's not intrinsic to the person either. There's no objective identity-o-meter.
midnighttoker3 7y ago
Maybe the rule should jsut be don't be an asshole.
kelnos 7y ago
Spreading a view that being trans isn't "a thing" takes away the rights and agency of people, denies their experience, and arrogantly espouses the experience of the speaker as the be-all, end-all of how life is. This is something I consider a "negative view", not because the view itself is "bad" (though IMO it is), but because it's a view that pushes or causes negative consequences upon the group it is about. Spreading a view that trans people should be supported acknowledges that everyone is different, and even if the speaker is not comfortable with the concept of people being trans, recognizes that someone else's gender orientation has nothing to do with them, and that people deserve to live in a way that makes them feel whole. This is a "positive view": it acknowledges the experience of others, even if that experience is incomprehensible to the speaker, and advocates support, not ostracism. (A simple test can also be: "does supporting X cause actual harm to anyone", and if the answer is "no", then one ought to support it, or at least not oppose it.) So yes, I certainly take a dim view toward people who have the first kind of view (regardless of what the topic is about). I would feel uncomfortable working with someone like that. But if we didn't talk politics, and I didn't know -- is ignorance bliss? Perhaps? I'm not sure. I mean, it's certainly possible that I work with people right now who have views that I would find gross, and maybe we get along (professionally) just fine? Is being in the matrix better? But what about the larger implications? I would refuse to work for a company with leadership that was actively anti-trans. Take Chik-fil-a for example. They've come out against LGBTQ rights, and have donated to anti-LGBTQ groups. I'm very glad I know this about them, because I would never take a job with them if offered, and I boycott their restaurants. On the flip side, I'm pleased that I work for a company whose CEO speaks out publicly in favor of diversity and inclusion, and I respect him for using his position of (relative) power to promote good. I think it's important to recognize that companies are made up of people, and people have political opinions. It's hard to say that political opinions are always unrelated to work; sometimes those opinions do actually intersect with what the company works on. For example, if I were at Google, I would definitely have pushed the company to cut ties with China; I don't think it's worth supporting a repressive, authoritarian government in exchange for profits. Should I have been prohibited to talk about politics at work and let that go? Should my only recourse be to quit in protest?

pjc50 7y ago

> Do you honestly believe I'd be able to express that in such an environment, as much as someone who believes it is "a thing"? Should you be able to comfortably express that to your trans co-worker, no matter how uncomfortable that makes them? That's why this is not a symmetrical issue.

big_chungus 7y ago
What if you have a co-worker who is an Arab immigrant and does not believe in trans-sexuality due to his cultural and religious background? Should he be able to express that? Why or why not? Ought the trans-sexual to be able to express his beliefs if it makes said co-worker uncomfortable? When two deeply-held elements of personal identity are in conflict, the only way to resolve it is for both sides to keep silent or for a third party to insert himself and pick the side in which he believes. In either case, you are telling someone he must change who he is. The alternative is to simply not discuss such matters at work. And yes, I believe both sides have the right to express their beliefs and that the comfort of neither trumps the right of the other to speak. I just think time, place, and manner are generally reasonable constraints.
- CompanionCuuube 7y ago
  Yes, not discussing it doesn't mean you can't accommodate them. Just because you don't discuss religion in the office doesn't prevent you from having halal/kosher meal options. Not discussing transgender issues doesn't prevent you from having a gender neutral bathroom.
manigandham 7y ago
The absolute answer is yes. You have a right to say it. Nobody is owed comfort. However this clearly won't lead to a productive workplace, which is why it's not a good idea to allow these discussions. There are plenty of other restrictions within a private company to create the best conditions for the work they're paying you for. It's perfectly reasonable.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Good to know that people believe in making work hostile for their marginalized colleagues. And people wonder why there are fewer women in this industry.
  - DuskStar 7y ago
    I think you missed the "and because allowing people to state the 'wrong' opinions would be bad, we'll ban expressing all the opinions" component of his statement.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    If you can't read past the first line then you're the evidence for why this policy is needed. Politics are making work hostile for everyone. Let's avoid them altogether.
    - pcnix 7y ago
      Where's your line on what constitutes politics then? Is a discussion on let's say patterns of harassment of female employees by senior staff and ways to avoid that a political discussion? Is a discussion of salary disparities at the company among employees of different genders and races a political discussion? The point is that instead of drawing a line around topics to say which ones are acceptable and which ones are not, there should be a line that says any discussion that causes harm/hurt to colleagues is frowned upon and to be avoided? It's quite easy to say let's avoid politics because it causes problems at work, but that stance ignores the nuance in the situation.
TeMPOraL 7y ago
Whether one gets uncomfortable hearing a statement isn't good evidence for whether that statement is correct or wrong. This asymmetry of feelings is actually an argument in favor of not talking about some topics at work, unless all involved parties voluntarily agree to it. A less controversial but essentially equivalent example would be religion. It's widely recognized that you shouldn't spend time at work trying to invalidate your co-worker's religious views (or lack of them), unless they specifically ask you to. This applies to everything people build their identities around.
DuskStar 7y ago
If you can have political discussion as long as you have the right opinions, that's not really a discussion is it? It's "affirm you agree with my political beliefs or be fired". And a few parallels - what do you do about the person who's afraid of being shot if the government comes to take their guns (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning that way), or the person who's afraid of their kids being shot at school (and thus is going to be uncomfortable with opinions leaning towards fewer restrictions on guns)? You can't satisfy both of them without banning discussion, and a lot of issues are like that.
- pjc50 7y ago
  Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood.
  - tomp 7y ago
    Religion isn't intrinsic to the person but is a protected characteristic so in reality the line isn't where you claim it is.
    - TeMPOraL 7y ago
      Also, while characteristics defined by biology or history are not choices, identity to a large extent is.
    - DoofusOfDeath 7y ago
      > Religion isn't intrinsic to the person ... Interestingly, even that statement takes a particular religious stance. Some branches of Christianity hold that a person does not choose to be Christian, but rather is chosen by God to be a Christian [0]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irresistible_grace
  - ThrowawayR2 7y ago
    > "Gun ownership is not a "protected characteristic", because it's not something intrinsic to the person. Your example discusses risks and statements about the future, but not questions of identity and personhood." Identity is whatever a person decides it is, according to progressive doctrine, therefore it's not intrinsic to the person either. There's no objective identity-o-meter.

midnighttoker3 7y ago

Maybe the rule should jsut be don't be an asshole.

kelnos 7y ago

Spreading a view that being trans isn't "a thing" takes away the rights and agency of people, denies their experience, and arrogantly espouses the experience of the speaker as the be-all, end-all of how life is. This is something I consider a "negative view", not because the view itself is "bad" (though IMO it is), but because it's a view that pushes or causes negative consequences upon the group it is about. Spreading a view that trans people should be supported acknowledges that everyone is different, and even if the speaker is not comfortable with the concept of people being trans, recognizes that someone else's gender orientation has nothing to do with them, and that people deserve to live in a way that makes them feel whole. This is a "positive view": it acknowledges the experience of others, even if that experience is incomprehensible to the speaker, and advocates support, not ostracism. (A simple test can also be: "does supporting X cause actual harm to anyone", and if the answer is "no", then one ought to support it, or at least not oppose it.) So yes, I certainly take a dim view toward people who have the first kind of view (regardless of what the topic is about). I would feel uncomfortable working with someone like that. But if we didn't talk politics, and I didn't know -- is ignorance bliss? Perhaps? I'm not sure. I mean, it's certainly possible that I work with people right now who have views that I would find gross, and maybe we get along (professionally) just fine? Is being in the matrix better? But what about the larger implications? I would refuse to work for a company with leadership that was actively anti-trans. Take Chik-fil-a for example. They've come out against LGBTQ rights, and have donated to anti-LGBTQ groups. I'm very glad I know this about them, because I would never take a job with them if offered, and I boycott their restaurants. On the flip side, I'm pleased that I work for a company whose CEO speaks out publicly in favor of diversity and inclusion, and I respect him for using his position of (relative) power to promote good. I think it's important to recognize that companies are made up of people, and people have political opinions. It's hard to say that political opinions are always unrelated to work; sometimes those opinions do actually intersect with what the company works on. For example, if I were at Google, I would definitely have pushed the company to cut ties with China; I don't think it's worth supporting a repressive, authoritarian government in exchange for profits. Should I have been prohibited to talk about politics at work and let that go? Should my only recourse be to quit in protest?