3 ms·

Safe spaces have made their way into the corporate world, truly sad to see freedom of speech and diversity of thought getting destroyed being celebrated around

Safe spaces have made their way into the corporate world, truly sad to see freedom of speech and diversity of thought getting destroyed being celebrated around here. But in a way is also refreshing, we are near the bottom (or nearer), corporations have real stakes, they need to generate real profits so unlike college campuses where the performance of a university doesn't really matter, a company like Apple has very little room for underperforming, and the minute revenue starts to drop they'll realize it's not healthy for a company to cater to the woke mob and hopefully begin reversing course. Let's just hope not much damage is done before that.

detaro 5y ago
Sounds like longing to return to the safe space where you can say what you want about others without consequences?
- insert_coin 5y ago
  It is very very sad that this has to even be said, but freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with, diversity means tolerating viewpoints different than yours. Is the US a nation of laws or a nation ruled by mob?
  - Aeolun 5y ago
    In my opinion, looking at the US anywhere in the previous 4 years, we already know the answer to that question.
  - detaro 5y ago
    Way to many people loudly whining about "safe spaces" tend to have a problem with tolerance too as soon as it comes to groups they don't like. (E.g. to take the dude here, are the reports about him harassing women that argue for being childless an example of them not "tolerating things they don't agree with" (they could just tolerate the harassment I suppose), or of him not "tolerating things he doesn't agree with"?) Which is why I describe the "before" as also a kind of "safe spaces", change just shifts who gets pushed out of them. (Still sucks for the one that gets the short end of the stick of course, but that's also not a new thing)
    - insert_coin 5y ago
      You don't seem to understand the difference between thought and conduct. If he was harassing "anyone", there are already many laws and many lawyers waiting to take everything he owns from him. The courts are there exactly for that reason. If it's his viewpoints people have a problem with, as seems to be the case by the ample evidence directly from the people demanding his job citing the contents of his book even before having spent one day with the guy, then his actions were not ever in question. So again I ask you in faint hopes you don't keep evading the question, are we a nation ruled by laws or a nation ruled by mob?
      - detaro 5y ago
        If that's the two options: ruled by laws. As you said, the courts are there if what Apple did was against the law. It's just a pretty useless dichotomy, because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. And that's by design. And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing.
        insert_coin 5y ago
        I don't have a problem with what Apple did, they should be able to fire anyone for any reason without explanation at any time. Apple took the easy way out to avoid more short term damage, and that was their decision to make. > because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. Then we are not a nation of laws, because the room is there for a reason. Judges and juries are there for a reason, to decide how much room is necessary as we cannot police thought, and we shouldn't try. > And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing. Why are you fine with lgbtq being excluded from jobs? You can't have it both ways, two wrongs don't make a right. The law should be the bar, the only bar, not mob anger.
corinroyal 5y ago
Since when has "diversity" included having to keep bigots on payroll? Should we start an affirmative action program to keep sexist douchebags employed at major companies? We'll know when Silicon Valley culture has been sufficiently reformed when an asshole getting fired isn't treated to a barrage of laments about "slippery slopes", "cancel culture" or "damn SWJs".
- insert_coin 5y ago
  > Since when has "diversity" included having to keep bigots on payroll? Since...always? That is what diversity means, aren't you employed? Diversity is not only about what you look like, or the color of your skin, and it doesn't mean to throw a tantrum every time your feelings get hurt either in case you weren't aware. > We'll know when Silicon Valley culture has been sufficiently reformed when an asshole getting fired isn't treated to a barrage of laments about "slippery slopes", "cancel culture" or "damn SWJs". In that you are correct, that is the bottom of the slope.

detaro 5y ago

Sounds like longing to return to the safe space where you can say what you want about others without consequences?

insert_coin 5y ago
It is very very sad that this has to even be said, but freedom means tolerating things you don't agree with, diversity means tolerating viewpoints different than yours. Is the US a nation of laws or a nation ruled by mob?
- Aeolun 5y ago
  In my opinion, looking at the US anywhere in the previous 4 years, we already know the answer to that question.
- detaro 5y ago
  Way to many people loudly whining about "safe spaces" tend to have a problem with tolerance too as soon as it comes to groups they don't like. (E.g. to take the dude here, are the reports about him harassing women that argue for being childless an example of them not "tolerating things they don't agree with" (they could just tolerate the harassment I suppose), or of him not "tolerating things he doesn't agree with"?) Which is why I describe the "before" as also a kind of "safe spaces", change just shifts who gets pushed out of them. (Still sucks for the one that gets the short end of the stick of course, but that's also not a new thing)
  - insert_coin 5y ago
    You don't seem to understand the difference between thought and conduct. If he was harassing "anyone", there are already many laws and many lawyers waiting to take everything he owns from him. The courts are there exactly for that reason. If it's his viewpoints people have a problem with, as seems to be the case by the ample evidence directly from the people demanding his job citing the contents of his book even before having spent one day with the guy, then his actions were not ever in question. So again I ask you in faint hopes you don't keep evading the question, are we a nation ruled by laws or a nation ruled by mob?
    - detaro 5y ago
      If that's the two options: ruled by laws. As you said, the courts are there if what Apple did was against the law. It's just a pretty useless dichotomy, because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. And that's by design. And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing.
      - insert_coin 5y ago
        I don't have a problem with what Apple did, they should be able to fire anyone for any reason without explanation at any time. Apple took the easy way out to avoid more short term damage, and that was their decision to make. > because the law leaves lots of room for things to happen inside its boundaries. Then we are not a nation of laws, because the room is there for a reason. Judges and juries are there for a reason, to decide how much room is necessary as we cannot police thought, and we shouldn't try. > And again, the original point is not about good or bad, but that this is not new. You got excluded in corporate places for the wrong thoughts (if you shared them too loudly) before people went on and on about "safe spaces". It just was different things. And as such I find complaints about them being some new horrible thing unconvincing. Why are you fine with lgbtq being excluded from jobs? You can't have it both ways, two wrongs don't make a right. The law should be the bar, the only bar, not mob anger.

corinroyal 5y ago

Since when has "diversity" included having to keep bigots on payroll? Should we start an affirmative action program to keep sexist douchebags employed at major companies? We'll know when Silicon Valley culture has been sufficiently reformed when an asshole getting fired isn't treated to a barrage of laments about "slippery slopes", "cancel culture" or "damn SWJs".

insert_coin 5y ago
> Since when has "diversity" included having to keep bigots on payroll? Since...always? That is what diversity means, aren't you employed? Diversity is not only about what you look like, or the color of your skin, and it doesn't mean to throw a tantrum every time your feelings get hurt either in case you weren't aware. > We'll know when Silicon Valley culture has been sufficiently reformed when an asshole getting fired isn't treated to a barrage of laments about "slippery slopes", "cancel culture" or "damn SWJs". In that you are correct, that is the bottom of the slope.