5 ms·

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sex

"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist?

javagram 7y ago
> doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality [. . .] didn't think you should be allowed to exist Words like "racist" or "transphobic" go well beyond that - what you are describing is someone advocating for outright Nazism and the execution / capital punishment of anyone they don't like. I think most of us would be uncomfortable working with someone who is trying to have us literally killed. For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. Even though this position might be considered normal by 50% or more of society it still gets an "-phobic" and advocates would try to have such a person fired, even if they tried to accommodate by e.g. referring patients to another doctor or so on. Look at the case of Brendan Eich who donated to a referendum that won, it was supported by more than 50% of his state's voters - he was still forced to resign his job and leave despite his record of treating coworkers fairly, giving them benefits despite not being married, etc. I think when people worry about this they are less worried about the literal Nazis (richard spencer types, who are an incredibly small minority even today) and more about the people who may be 10, 20, 30%, even 40% of society. If you are seeking to attack such a large number of people that's a recipe for trouble.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
  > For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. You are leaving out the important bit: The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position--i.e., where the actual motivation for the refusal is their personal dislike of giving trans people the opportunity to transition according to their own wishes rather than genuine concern for the patient.
  - javagram 7y ago
    > The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position Well, I don't think we are going to solve this in the comments section, but my impression is that is not true. Trans-friendly doctors who have a long history of working in the field and helping suffering individuals transition have been accused of being transphobic, while advocates for aggressive medical treatment openly admit they don't have scientific evidence backing their treatments (use of puberty blockers in young children, for instance, is off-label and I'm unaware of any studies done with control groups that compare therapy vs drugs for treating this in children). E.g. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-r... Where this will eventually land in terms of the science isn't clear to me but what is clear is that the use of the term "transphobe" has increased dramatically. I've also seen it applied to those who state they wouldn't be interested in dating or having sex with a transitioned person, which is far from wishing them to not be human or not exist. I think it's very reasonable to want to avoid people who are openly racist or problematic in the workplace but expanding definitions of "phobic" and "ism" is concerning and I'd wonder how such algorithmic tools would judge where the lines are.
BlueTemplar 7y ago
That's a very extreme interpretation of "racist" ? (It's a sliding scale, remember?)
calimac 7y ago
Gaslight much? Take a class in logic and reasoning at your nearest community college.
thaeli 7y ago
I do work with people who don't think I should be allowed to exist. But they're required to be polite to me at work, and to use my pronouns, and as long as they do that no lines have been crossed.
- wayneftw 7y ago
  If my personal issues demanded that people use special pronouns around me in order to protect my own self identity, I think that I would eventually be more self-conscious about the fact that the majority of people in my office are now most likely making fun of me behind my back and calling me whatever they want when I'm not around... Don't people just avoid using pronouns altogether for you though if they feel so opposed to it? Seems like a pretty simple workaround. What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway?
  - wolfgang42 7y ago
    I don’t even know where to start with this comment, so I’ll single out a bit of it: > What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway? Ummm… exist? Do their job? “Hey, I was talking to thaeli, and %s said that I should ask you about…”
  - mplanchard 7y ago
    This comment feels remarkably uncharitable and unkind. Many of us are perfectly happy to refer to people by their chosen pronouns without making fun of them behind their backs. Hopefully the poster you were replying to works in an office where people are not as childish and inconsiderate as you assume they would be.
  - maest 7y ago
    Why would people make fun of them behind their back?
    - wayneftw 7y ago
      Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
coldtea 7y ago
>"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots... >Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist? First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument? There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc. Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist. There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc. And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this). Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work. If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.
- unlinked_dll 7y ago
  Most bigots don't realize they're bigots. But ostracizing them from professional society exasperates the victim complex inherent to bigotry.
  - coldtea 7y ago
    >Most bigots don't realize they're bigots Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!
BurningFrog 7y ago
Thinking that anyone disagreeing with my opinions want certain people exterminated is not healthy. There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us. My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.
- jlg23 7y ago
  Death to all fatalists!
wolco 7y ago
I'm from Canada and this opinion seems extreme and would result in the opposite effect. Not allowing someone to work would make them open their own business. They would hire like minded people. They would push some mainstream businesses into bankrupcy. Sounds like a recipe for more racism. Like you are doubling down. In Canada we would work with the person and tell people to leave your opinions at home. Magically opinions change quickly when you get to know one another. It is hard to hold on to such views when the reality is so different.

javagram 7y ago

> doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality [. . .] didn't think you should be allowed to exist Words like "racist" or "transphobic" go well beyond that - what you are describing is someone advocating for outright Nazism and the execution / capital punishment of anyone they don't like. I think most of us would be uncomfortable working with someone who is trying to have us literally killed. For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. Even though this position might be considered normal by 50% or more of society it still gets an "-phobic" and advocates would try to have such a person fired, even if they tried to accommodate by e.g. referring patients to another doctor or so on. Look at the case of Brendan Eich who donated to a referendum that won, it was supported by more than 50% of his state's voters - he was still forced to resign his job and leave despite his record of treating coworkers fairly, giving them benefits despite not being married, etc. I think when people worry about this they are less worried about the literal Nazis (richard spencer types, who are an incredibly small minority even today) and more about the people who may be 10, 20, 30%, even 40% of society. If you are seeking to attack such a large number of people that's a recipe for trouble.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC 7y ago
> For instance, a doctor who doesn't want to perform a sex change operation or administer hormones to young children, because they think it is harmful to them, would be considered transphobic by many advocates. You are leaving out the important bit: The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position--i.e., where the actual motivation for the refusal is their personal dislike of giving trans people the opportunity to transition according to their own wishes rather than genuine concern for the patient.
- javagram 7y ago
  > The justification. The problem isn't a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful, the problem is a doctor refusing because they think it is harmful against established science with no science to back up their own position Well, I don't think we are going to solve this in the comments section, but my impression is that is not true. Trans-friendly doctors who have a long history of working in the field and helping suffering individuals transition have been accused of being transphobic, while advocates for aggressive medical treatment openly admit they don't have scientific evidence backing their treatments (use of puberty blockers in young children, for instance, is off-label and I'm unaware of any studies done with control groups that compare therapy vs drugs for treating this in children). E.g. https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-researcher-fired.html https://www.thecut.com/2016/02/fight-over-trans-kids-got-a-r... Where this will eventually land in terms of the science isn't clear to me but what is clear is that the use of the term "transphobe" has increased dramatically. I've also seen it applied to those who state they wouldn't be interested in dating or having sex with a transitioned person, which is far from wishing them to not be human or not exist. I think it's very reasonable to want to avoid people who are openly racist or problematic in the workplace but expanding definitions of "phobic" and "ism" is concerning and I'd wonder how such algorithmic tools would judge where the lines are.

BlueTemplar 7y ago

That's a very extreme interpretation of "racist" ? (It's a sliding scale, remember?)

calimac 7y ago

Gaslight much? Take a class in logic and reasoning at your nearest community college.

thaeli 7y ago

I do work with people who don't think I should be allowed to exist. But they're required to be polite to me at work, and to use my pronouns, and as long as they do that no lines have been crossed.

wayneftw 7y ago
If my personal issues demanded that people use special pronouns around me in order to protect my own self identity, I think that I would eventually be more self-conscious about the fact that the majority of people in my office are now most likely making fun of me behind my back and calling me whatever they want when I'm not around... Don't people just avoid using pronouns altogether for you though if they feel so opposed to it? Seems like a pretty simple workaround. What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway?
- wolfgang42 7y ago
  I don’t even know where to start with this comment, so I’ll single out a bit of it: > What do you do that people are consistently talking about you in the third person anyway? Ummm… exist? Do their job? “Hey, I was talking to thaeli, and %s said that I should ask you about…”
- mplanchard 7y ago
  This comment feels remarkably uncharitable and unkind. Many of us are perfectly happy to refer to people by their chosen pronouns without making fun of them behind their backs. Hopefully the poster you were replying to works in an office where people are not as childish and inconsiderate as you assume they would be.
- maest 7y ago
  Why would people make fun of them behind their back?
  - wayneftw 7y ago
    Because this is generally a topic of ridicule? You don't have to look very far - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbT2sQ1GmgY

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

coldtea 7y ago

>"Bad opinions" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept of someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality. And "someone that doesn't think you're fully human based on the color of your skin or your sexuality" is a pretty remarkable simplification of the concept that someone might have religious, moral, philosophical, practical, political, or other considerations about certain behaviours -- in an era when all nuance is often lost and they are bagged as bigots... >Would you want to work with someone that didn't think you should be allowed to exist? First, why would you use a huge strawman as an argument? There are tons of ways to think X group should do something different, or do or not do something, or that they're not saints, or that they go about Y in the wrong way, without thinking "they should not be allowed to exist". But still people are called out for all kinds of tame stuff (e.g. saying only biological women should compete in women's sports, for example), called out to be fired, etc. Second, yes, I might not want to work with people who don't think I should exist, but I also don't want to have them fired for not wanting me to exist. There are many coworkers I had throughout my career I myself wished didn't existed (idiotic bosses), but I wouldn't want to get their fired, cause them pain etc. And if they wish me not to exist, that's their thing. Even if they show it, e.g. with passive aggressiveness, etc (which happens all too often in the workplace just because two people don't like each other, compete for the same position, have different styles, one is jealous of the other, etc. - race/sex etc is hardly the most common cause of this). Point being, I'm not some God to dictate who deserves to have work or not. Nor do their families, kids, etc deserve to suffer because I am "hurt" of their opinions. And even less so, their personal opinions, outside of work. If they behave unprofessionally at work to me or anyone else, sure, have them fired.

unlinked_dll 7y ago
Most bigots don't realize they're bigots. But ostracizing them from professional society exasperates the victim complex inherent to bigotry.
- coldtea 7y ago
  >Most bigots don't realize they're bigots Yes. In that regard they are exactly alike most holier than thou types!

BurningFrog 7y ago

Thinking that anyone disagreeing with my opinions want certain people exterminated is not healthy. There are not genocidal maniacs behind every tweet that annoys us. My best guess is that it's a form of Motivated Reasoning for "striking back first" at these imagined monsters.

jlg23 7y ago
Death to all fatalists!

wolco 7y ago

I'm from Canada and this opinion seems extreme and would result in the opposite effect. Not allowing someone to work would make them open their own business. They would hire like minded people. They would push some mainstream businesses into bankrupcy. Sounds like a recipe for more racism. Like you are doubling down. In Canada we would work with the person and tell people to leave your opinions at home. Magically opinions change quickly when you get to know one another. It is hard to hold on to such views when the reality is so different.