4 ms·

My best guess was that the person in question was suspected of being bigoted against trans people. That comes from the fact that she was actually called a bigot

My best guess was that the person in question was suspected of being bigoted against trans people. That comes from the fact that she was actually called a bigot in the discussion that supposedly triggered the firing. That probably came from her suggestion that one could get around using pronouns they didn't like by using a more generic "they". Sort of like a racial bigot wanting a definite list of words that were racial slurs that they could avoid using. Is suspicion of bigotry reasonable grounds for a firing? Well, if it was, there would be whole areas of the world with no employment. Normally people with such ideas merely need to keep them to themselves while at work and while interacting with coworkers.

zozbot234 7y ago
Except that the person wasn't seeking "a definite list of words ... that they could avoid using" (emphasis added). On the contrary, they were objecting to arbitrarily compelled speech ("use whatever word X might prefer you to use, even if you don't know with any certainty what that word might be, or else!"). These two stances couldn't be more different. Objecting to compelled speech, especially if entirely arbitrary as in this case, doesn't make you a bigot; it just makes you a reasonable human being.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- upofadown 7y ago
  Yeah, that is why I used the expression "sort of". You have indirectly raised an interesting point. Perhaps SO was afraid that the person they ended up firing was in the process of pulling a Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson informed her university that he would not respect a students choice of pronoun. When the university asked him not to be a jerk he then publicly complained that the university was infringing his freedom of speech. The result was that a whole lot of discussion ensued that was of interest to Jordan Peterson. SO would not be interesting in being the focus of such a discussion.
dmitrygr 7y ago
> wanting a definite list of words that were racial slurs that they could avoid using That is a very bad example. Unless you are talking about living in a small village, you'll find that the Justice Potter test of "i know it when i see it" does not work! There is no such thing as "we can all agree that $X is bad, or $Y is an insult". Cultures vary WILDLY around the world, and the internet brings all those people together, giving them ability to say things that some feel are "clearly insulting and you should know it" and others feel are "completely normal discourse" If you want to create a rule and apply it, you actually need to be rigorous and precise. This is why laws are written that way, and why we do not have laws saying "do not do bad shit, you know what i mean" So yes, if you want to ban some types of words you had better be ready to provide a clear, complete, and correct list of what is banned. You may update it, but if you aren't prepared to provide it, you are not yet ready to create a policy around it! Some reading to explore: Baskin, Barry (16 November 2018). Implicit Bias in the Courtroom (PDF) (Speech). 2018 Afternoon Plenary Speakers. Contra Costa County, California: Contra Costa County Bar Association. Retrieved 29 November 2018. http://www.cccba.org/attorney/mcle/seminar-materials/2018/Plenary_Session.pdf http://www.cccba.org/attorney/mcle/seminar-materials/2018/Pl... Goldberg, William (October 2010). "Two Nations, One Web: Comparative Legal Approaches To Pornographic Obscenity By The United States And The United Kingdom" (PDF): 2121–2148. Retrieved 29 November 2018. http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/goldberg_000.pdf http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/goldbe...

zozbot234 7y ago

Except that the person wasn't seeking "a definite list of words ... that they could avoid using" (emphasis added). On the contrary, they were objecting to arbitrarily compelled speech ("use whatever word X might prefer you to use, even if you don't know with any certainty what that word might be, or else!"). These two stances couldn't be more different. Objecting to compelled speech, especially if entirely arbitrary as in this case, doesn't make you a bigot; it just makes you a reasonable human being.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
upofadown 7y ago
Yeah, that is why I used the expression "sort of". You have indirectly raised an interesting point. Perhaps SO was afraid that the person they ended up firing was in the process of pulling a Jordan Peterson. Jordan Peterson informed her university that he would not respect a students choice of pronoun. When the university asked him not to be a jerk he then publicly complained that the university was infringing his freedom of speech. The result was that a whole lot of discussion ensued that was of interest to Jordan Peterson. SO would not be interesting in being the focus of such a discussion.

dmitrygr 7y ago

> wanting a definite list of words that were racial slurs that they could avoid using That is a very bad example. Unless you are talking about living in a small village, you'll find that the Justice Potter test of "i know it when i see it" does not work! There is no such thing as "we can all agree that $X is bad, or $Y is an insult". Cultures vary WILDLY around the world, and the internet brings all those people together, giving them ability to say things that some feel are "clearly insulting and you should know it" and others feel are "completely normal discourse" If you want to create a rule and apply it, you actually need to be rigorous and precise. This is why laws are written that way, and why we do not have laws saying "do not do bad shit, you know what i mean" So yes, if you want to ban some types of words you had better be ready to provide a clear, complete, and correct list of what is banned. You may update it, but if you aren't prepared to provide it, you are not yet ready to create a policy around it! Some reading to explore: Baskin, Barry (16 November 2018). Implicit Bias in the Courtroom (PDF) (Speech). 2018 Afternoon Plenary Speakers. Contra Costa County, California: Contra Costa County Bar Association. Retrieved 29 November 2018. http://www.cccba.org/attorney/mcle/seminar-materials/2018/Plenary_Session.pdf http://www.cccba.org/attorney/mcle/seminar-materials/2018/Pl... Goldberg, William (October 2010). "Two Nations, One Web: Comparative Legal Approaches To Pornographic Obscenity By The United States And The United Kingdom" (PDF): 2121–2148. Retrieved 29 November 2018. http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/goldberg_000.pdf http://www.bu.edu/law/journals-archive/bulr/documents/goldbe...