5 ms·

I actually do not know what types of discourse they're referring to. Can you specify?

by mattdeboard 5y ago

baggy_trough 5y ago
Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.
- mattdeboard 5y ago
  Not sure I share the frame of reference I get the impression you're assuming we have in common. What do you mean?
- DiNovi 5y ago
  Ahh, love to ban "censorious" social justice activism.
  - UncleMeat 5y ago
    Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.
    - henryaj 5y ago
      Pretty sure the free speech absolutists would say that private companies can have whatever rules they like on their platform.
      - CRConrad 5y ago
        Would, but aren't. Kind of curious in and of itself; usually they not only would but also are.
  - asabjorn 5y ago
    Discourse can only be had when one is open to listening to individuals different viewpoints and accepting differences. Unlike individualistic ideologies social justice define a person by a constantly expanding set of politically motivated unchosen groups organized as “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and it is actively opposed to discourse as it sees that as a mechanism for the powerful/dominant group to assert power over the less powerful group in a zero sum game. I think its pretty clear at this point that social justice in the workplace lead to more conflict and resentment than its worth. It also makes excellent people doubt if they were hired due to a quota or because of expertise (or the reverse for other groups).
- tshaddox 5y ago
  Is anyone able to actually articulate an example of a political or societal topic that is supposedly obviously of the type that shouldn’t be discussed at work?
  - nemo44x 5y ago
    Sure - the USA Government wants to sign a deal to buy your software. But a group of people start a divisive email thread on how the USA Gov is a racist, white supremacist, sexist, imperialist government and the company should boycott them. Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine. Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps! Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded. Or China wants to sign a deal but <fill in the blank> Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies. Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol.... Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”. Or “the leadership needs more X” Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples. HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.
    - tshaddox 5y ago
      I appreciate that you provided a lot of examples. For each example, I’m wondering if you think it shouldn’t be discussed because the debate itself isn’t important to the company (e.g. “it doesn’t matter whether the US government is a white supremacist government, we are doing this deal with them either way”), or because the company has taken a stance on the debate (e.g. “the US government is not a white supremacist government, and we are doing this deal with them”). If your reason is the former, I’m curious how far you would take that. Is there any conceivable case where the company should not do business with some organization or government because of political issues? And if your reason is the latter, then shouldn’t the company try to be upfront (at least internally among employees) where it stands on these issues?

I actually do not know what types of discourse they're referring to. Can you specify?

baggy_trough 5y ago

Presumably the more toxic and censorious forms of social justice activism.

mattdeboard 5y ago
Not sure I share the frame of reference I get the impression you're assuming we have in common. What do you mean?
DiNovi 5y ago
Ahh, love to ban "censorious" social justice activism.
- UncleMeat 5y ago
  Yeah. Notice how the free speech absolutists are nowhere to be found here.
  - henryaj 5y ago
    Pretty sure the free speech absolutists would say that private companies can have whatever rules they like on their platform.
    - CRConrad 5y ago
      Would, but aren't. Kind of curious in and of itself; usually they not only would but also are.
- asabjorn 5y ago
  Discourse can only be had when one is open to listening to individuals different viewpoints and accepting differences. Unlike individualistic ideologies social justice define a person by a constantly expanding set of politically motivated unchosen groups organized as “oppressor” and “oppressed”, and it is actively opposed to discourse as it sees that as a mechanism for the powerful/dominant group to assert power over the less powerful group in a zero sum game. I think its pretty clear at this point that social justice in the workplace lead to more conflict and resentment than its worth. It also makes excellent people doubt if they were hired due to a quota or because of expertise (or the reverse for other groups).
tshaddox 5y ago
Is anyone able to actually articulate an example of a political or societal topic that is supposedly obviously of the type that shouldn’t be discussed at work?
- nemo44x 5y ago
  Sure - the USA Government wants to sign a deal to buy your software. But a group of people start a divisive email thread on how the USA Gov is a racist, white supremacist, sexist, imperialist government and the company should boycott them. Or that Israel wants to sign a deal but a thread is started that we should boycott and divest from the the Zionist murderers of Palestine. Or the Republican Party wants to sign a deal - where do we start?! Oh boy. Best keep that contract under wraps! Or a police department wants to sign a deal but a thread launches that is certain that police are racist and doing a deal with them is harmful to PoC, etc. They must be defunded. Or China wants to sign a deal but <fill in the blank> Or Planned Parenthood wants to sign a deal but they murder babies. Or the lol Catholic Church signs a deal lol.... Outside of business deals - “the company must take a position with BLM or else it is supports racism”. Or “the leadership needs more X” Or whatever. There’s no end to this and there’s no ends to the examples. HERE IS WHY THIS IS GOOD POLICY: At some point, there is a good chance a reactionary party will take office. It will be charismatic and leverage done overreach on the left. It will feel empowering for a large group of people to be heard and the media, as they always do eventually, will fall in line with the reactionaries. This will not be good. And suddenly open discussion on “what’s right to do politically” will be awful. We need to stop that from happening. But the longer a small group of far left bullies dictates “née norms” the more good people will stay silent until the day that charismatic leader comes into view. Trump was not that leader and still got 70m votes. Someone that is an actual reactionary and not just a buffoon will come up and will seem like a good idea to a lot of people. And if the norm is that popular political opinion should be infused into everything then good luck.
  - tshaddox 5y ago
    I appreciate that you provided a lot of examples. For each example, I’m wondering if you think it shouldn’t be discussed because the debate itself isn’t important to the company (e.g. “it doesn’t matter whether the US government is a white supremacist government, we are doing this deal with them either way”), or because the company has taken a stance on the debate (e.g. “the US government is not a white supremacist government, and we are doing this deal with them”). If your reason is the former, I’m curious how far you would take that. Is there any conceivable case where the company should not do business with some organization or government because of political issues? And if your reason is the latter, then shouldn’t the company try to be upfront (at least internally among employees) where it stands on these issues?