5 ms·

I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this

by slg 6y ago

I thought that was clear from my previous comment, so I'm not sure how much clearer I can make it. She used the term "unlawful discrimination". She wants this behavior to stop. She is calling this behavior out as illegal. I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law.

asquabventured 6y ago
I think she wants her previous employer to protect her rights and not be subject to a hostile work environment, no?
- smsm42 6y ago
  I think she wants a culture where one can honestly disagree and debate on important questions without being called a Nazi and mobbed into oblivion. Unfortunately, the modern left is not that culture and working for a large leftist newspaper is not where you can find that culture.
manfredo 6y ago
> My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. > There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her. Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.
- slg 6y ago
  Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    > Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong. > Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
    - slg 6y ago
      Discrimination is a legal word. She used the phrase "unlawful discrimination" which means she is using it in a legal context. Discrimination is not defined by being "subjected to harassing and hostile behavior" unless the reason for that behavior focuses on a protected class. There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".
      - smsm42 6y ago
        > There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts". It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.
tomcam 6y ago
> I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law. I’m not sure your mind reading skills are quite up to the job you’ve assigned yourself...
- slg 6y ago
  I have provided two different explanations for my interpretation. You have just commented that I am wrong twice. If you want me to actually consider your opinion, maybe you should actually give a reason why I am wrong.
luckylion 6y ago
> She wants this behavior to stop. "this behavior" being insults, mobbing and "ax emojis + name", not "disagreement", apparently. Wouldn't you? And if you don't, why would you draw any line? Why shouldn't it be okay to get beaten up for saying "the wrong thing", it shouldn't be "consequence free speech" after all?

by slg 6y ago

asquabventured 6y ago

I think she wants her previous employer to protect her rights and not be subject to a hostile work environment, no?

smsm42 6y ago
I think she wants a culture where one can honestly disagree and debate on important questions without being called a Nazi and mobbed into oblivion. Unfortunately, the modern left is not that culture and working for a large leftist newspaper is not where you can find that culture.

manfredo 6y ago

> My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are. > There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong I don't think this is referring to curbing any specific opinion or view, but rather her co-workers' interactions with her. Its entirely appropriate to speak out against, say, the pervasive denial of climate change among evangelicals. That said if you have an evangelical coworker that doesn't believe in climate change, you will still be met with repercussions if you go around calling said co-worker a backwards dumbass and repeatedly post ax emojis next to their name in slack.

slg 6y ago
Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal. You can of course be fired for that inappropriate behavior, but it isn't illegal. Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. Also it is worth pointing out that Weiss's job was to voice opinions. It is entirely different for someone in that role to face backlash for their bad opinions than it is for someone in the role of let's say a mid-level software developer.
- smsm42 6y ago
  > Calling your climate change denying coworker a backwards dumb-ass is not illegal Illegal is when you call the police. There's lots of behaviors that the employer is better to prevent before you have to call the police. If it rose to the level of illegal, there's a lot of things that already went wrong. > Weiss specifically called out this behavior as unlawful discrimination. If she was uniquely subjected to harassing and hostile behavior then it's discrimination, by definition. If that treatment is routine for anyone that dares to voice an unorthodox though in NYT, then it's not discrimination - it's just deeply sick and broken culture.
  - slg 6y ago
    Discrimination is a legal word. She used the phrase "unlawful discrimination" which means she is using it in a legal context. Discrimination is not defined by being "subjected to harassing and hostile behavior" unless the reason for that behavior focuses on a protected class. There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts".
    - smsm42 6y ago
      > There is nothing unlawful about treating her poorly based on her "unorthodox thoughts". It could be that she is, not being a lawyer, wrong on the "unlawful" part (it's impossible to know without knowing the details and the NY anti-discrimination statutes and caselaw). So what? It's not an argument in a lawsuit, exact precision of all legal terms is not the most important thing here.

tomcam 6y ago

> I don't think it is a leap to think that she wants this behavior that she is against and called illegal to be stopped by the law. I’m not sure your mind reading skills are quite up to the job you’ve assigned yourself...

slg 6y ago
I have provided two different explanations for my interpretation. You have just commented that I am wrong twice. If you want me to actually consider your opinion, maybe you should actually give a reason why I am wrong.

luckylion 6y ago

> She wants this behavior to stop. "this behavior" being insults, mobbing and "ax emojis + name", not "disagreement", apparently. Wouldn't you? And if you don't, why would you draw any line? Why shouldn't it be okay to get beaten up for saying "the wrong thing", it shouldn't be "consequence free speech" after all?