9 ms·

Advocating for what things exactly? It might be a strawman, but I’m going to guess and it would be something like an end to perceived workplace raceism/sexism/

by ixacto 5y ago

Advocating for what things exactly? It might be a strawman, but I’m going to guess and it would be something like an end to perceived workplace raceism/sexism/*isms. If you let in political advocacy movements from the left do you really want political movements from the right? Or is it just ok if the left is advocating for it? I kinda think the left is trying to have their equity cake and eat it too… To some people (I am not one of them at all, but I understand the argument) any abortion is literally murder, and it as a sincerely held belief as the recent movements like BLM and #metoo were. So do you really want to hear about abortion/guns/illegals/debt/satanism/furries in the workplace? This is just setting up workplaces for problems or maybe we can just realize work is for work?

hluska 5y ago
Isn’t ending workplace sexism/racism a net benefit to the workplace? How are divisive, hate driven policies related?
- somehwk 5y ago
  > Somehow implying that forced Critical Race Theory trainings are ending workplace sexism and racism instead of making it worse Yeah buddy, I agree, hate-driven divisive ideology has no business being forced on workers in the workplace, that's why people are pissed off about all this Woke crap
- prewett 5y ago
  GP didn't say "end workplace sexism/racism", they said "end perceived workplace sexism/racism". The former could (arguably) have a definition of when we have arrived at this condition. The latter can never end, because someone can always perceive that it still exists (even if, objectively and hypothetically, it does not exist). Also, labeling the other side "divisive, hate driven" is not helpful. It's at least divisive itself, and it definitely does not invite understanding of the other side. But ultimately GP's point was that if you argue your side should be represented, you should consider whether you are okay with the other side also being represented. If not, maybe politics ought to stay out. (Or maybe the views should be moderated or rules of engagement enforced)
tshaddox 5y ago
> To some people (I am not one of them at all, but I understand the argument) any abortion is literally murder, and it as a sincerely held belief as the recent movements like BLM and #metoo were. This as well as other parts of your comment seem to imply that you believe the sincerity or intensity with which one holds a particular belief is one of the most important factors in the merits of that belief. I personally do not think this is the case.
- bhupy 5y ago
  This comment seems to imply that certain beliefs (ostensibly your own) are objective truths/facts that hold special merit. This is simply not the case.
- Kalium 5y ago
  I think you might find that those you consider your deepest ideological foes would wholeheartedly agree with you on precisely this point.
- tjs8rj 5y ago
  I think sincerity is a short hand to cut through partisanship. You believe what you believe sincerely, likely because you find it backed in truth / agreeing with your morals and best intentions. If we assume all humans generally back their sincere beliefs because they find them truthful / backed by their values, the conclusion is that you either have different information or different morals. You can either assume everyone who disagrees with you is evil or stupid, or you can probably more accurately recognize that someone who disagrees with you, especially if they also live in America, has access to just as much info as you, has access to similar resources, probably isn’t evil: so the conclusion is that they are acting in good faith but with different morals. Sincerity is a short hand for the fact that most humans are intelligent like you, and most humans in your proximity have access like you, and arent evil, so the result is that they are much more similar than you than you think but with different experiences. It means you can cut through to the root questions instead of using far worse shorthand’s than sincerity - like “they voted the other way so they much be evil and hellbent on destroying my way of life”.
GeneralMayhem 5y ago
This is a really disingenuous false equivalency. First, you're implying that all opinions are equally valid. That is... I'll be polite and simply call it nonsense. "Gay people should have rights" and "gay people shouldn't have rights" are not opinions of equal value, and it's not "eating your cake and having it too" to say that the latter opinion is unwelcome. Second, there's a very clear relationship between the "left" topics you mentioned and the workplace; not so for the "right" topics. You can make an argument that abortion/contraceptives are work-related because of employer-sponsored healthcare (I think it's clear that employees should keep their noses out of each other's private medical matters, but... okay), but the rest are totally ancillary. If you want a "no politics at work" rule, then you wouldn't have conversations about guns (unless it's to advocate that your employer allow guns at work), you wouldn't have conversations about immigration policy (unless it's to advocate that your employer stop sponsoring visas), and you wouldn't have conversations about furries (unless it's to advocate that your employer ban furry sex in the workplace... which I don't think is a problem that anyone has). You know what you would still have? Conversations about discrimination in the workplace. Conversations about whether your employer's political dollars are funding violence. Conversations about whether your recruitment policies are unconsciously biased.
- jlawson 5y ago
  When you say, "all opinions are equally valid", what does the word "valid" mean? It seems to be this word is doing a lot of work and if you explore this your position will quickly collapse. Opinions are generally about moral issues - what we should do, what goals we should pursue. They are not about positive facts like "how many people live in America". In the arena of goal-setting there are indeed no objective facts. It is equally valid to want to pursue a global caliphate where all women are slaves to the men who own them and all gay people and apostates are executed, as it is to want to pursue a global social justice utopia (however you could even describe such a thing). There is no objective standard to reject either goal. There are simply preferences. What's more prefereable? Killing an unborn fetus at 3 months development, or obligating a mother to carry it to term? Why? How can you possibly say that your preference is objectively true? It obviously isn't. If you think your preferences are objectively more right than others, you need to explain what part of the nature of the universe makes it so. (Incidentally religious people have this explanation - it's because the creator of the universe declared that these are the best preferences.) If you want more reading, you can look up the difference between positive and normative beliefs. Your goal here is just to set up a system where the people with power, who happen to agree with your preferences, get permission to punish people who disagree with their preferences. This is 100% a belief conditioned on the fact that you know that people like you have the power. If the people with power disagreed with you you'd be a free speech advocate (as people of your opinion were a few decades ago). There is in fact no way to objectively set up a policy of "Allow the right opinions, and punish the wrong ones" and it's childish to say you can.
klyrs 5y ago
I've had a coworker complain about my casual use of blasphemy and management agreed that I should tone it down. It's not necessarily left vs right; it's aiming to reduce toxic behaviors that make a workplace unsafe for others. Not every "political opinion" belongs in the workplace, but I've heard about everything on your list but furries in the workplace and gone on to have productive working relationships with those coworkers, occasionally with a brief "agree to disagree" demarking a topic as unwelcome over lunch.
- zdragnar 5y ago
  I've had coworkers with whom I have had cordial disagreements regarding politics and this isnt the issue. When the head of your division uses the time before meetings to talk politics, it is toxic- the power dynamic isn't even. Coworkers can do the same when they publicly hold discussions and expect everyone to agree- the dynamic is off, and toxic. You simply can't have a civil, earnest conversation in a group chat or email setting, because it is too easy for the group to run away with a misunderstanding.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
duped 5y ago
I mean if we're talking personally, the end of my rope is insurrection. I would not tolerate sympathies towards the events of January 6th. If my manager or other senior staff began expressing them I would have to voice my thoughts on the subject and begin sending resumes. The idea that both sides are equal is just fallacious. One side is advocating to be more aware of systematic racism and the other tried to incite revolt while rejecting the validity of our last election. One is advocating for a large discussion and the other is working against democracy.
- monoideism 5y ago
  > One side is advocating to be more aware of systematic racism and the other tried to incite revolt while rejecting the validity of our last election. One is advocating for a large discussion and the other is working against democracy. On some level, you must be aware that the other side frames these issues differently than you do, but with the same ferver and honesty as you. I happen to believe you're both spouting a load of ill-founded, partisan-driven, ad hoc beliefs, so I'm yet another point of view. Oh, and "large discussion"? Most people who share your ideology at Google, Facebook, and the like seem much more interested in imposing their point of view on others than in any "large discussion". To they contrary, if we express disagreement in discussion regarding certain issues, they try (and often succeed) in having people like us fired.
  - calvinmorrison 5y ago
    Nytimes did an infograph on political bubbles, ie are your neighbors all Democrats or Republicans? Turns out Republicans are the ones who are less likely to live in a bubble of conservative beliefs.
    - monoideism 5y ago
      > Turns out Republicans are the ones who are less likely to live in a bubble of conservative beliefs That's not surprising, given that liberal beliefs dominant our cultural landscape (eg: mainsteam media, Hollywood, social media, tech companies, colleges+universities, primary+seconday education, most corporations, etc, etc). It's pretty much impossible to live in a total bubble of conservative beliefs unless you live in a compound in a rural area. On the other hand, it's quite easy to live in a bubble of liberal beliefs in a typical large American city.

by ixacto 5y ago

hluska 5y ago

Isn’t ending workplace sexism/racism a net benefit to the workplace? How are divisive, hate driven policies related?

somehwk 5y ago
> Somehow implying that forced Critical Race Theory trainings are ending workplace sexism and racism instead of making it worse Yeah buddy, I agree, hate-driven divisive ideology has no business being forced on workers in the workplace, that's why people are pissed off about all this Woke crap
prewett 5y ago
GP didn't say "end workplace sexism/racism", they said "end perceived workplace sexism/racism". The former could (arguably) have a definition of when we have arrived at this condition. The latter can never end, because someone can always perceive that it still exists (even if, objectively and hypothetically, it does not exist). Also, labeling the other side "divisive, hate driven" is not helpful. It's at least divisive itself, and it definitely does not invite understanding of the other side. But ultimately GP's point was that if you argue your side should be represented, you should consider whether you are okay with the other side also being represented. If not, maybe politics ought to stay out. (Or maybe the views should be moderated or rules of engagement enforced)

tshaddox 5y ago

> To some people (I am not one of them at all, but I understand the argument) any abortion is literally murder, and it as a sincerely held belief as the recent movements like BLM and #metoo were. This as well as other parts of your comment seem to imply that you believe the sincerity or intensity with which one holds a particular belief is one of the most important factors in the merits of that belief. I personally do not think this is the case.

bhupy 5y ago
This comment seems to imply that certain beliefs (ostensibly your own) are objective truths/facts that hold special merit. This is simply not the case.
Kalium 5y ago
I think you might find that those you consider your deepest ideological foes would wholeheartedly agree with you on precisely this point.
tjs8rj 5y ago
I think sincerity is a short hand to cut through partisanship. You believe what you believe sincerely, likely because you find it backed in truth / agreeing with your morals and best intentions. If we assume all humans generally back their sincere beliefs because they find them truthful / backed by their values, the conclusion is that you either have different information or different morals. You can either assume everyone who disagrees with you is evil or stupid, or you can probably more accurately recognize that someone who disagrees with you, especially if they also live in America, has access to just as much info as you, has access to similar resources, probably isn’t evil: so the conclusion is that they are acting in good faith but with different morals. Sincerity is a short hand for the fact that most humans are intelligent like you, and most humans in your proximity have access like you, and arent evil, so the result is that they are much more similar than you than you think but with different experiences. It means you can cut through to the root questions instead of using far worse shorthand’s than sincerity - like “they voted the other way so they much be evil and hellbent on destroying my way of life”.

GeneralMayhem 5y ago

This is a really disingenuous false equivalency. First, you're implying that all opinions are equally valid. That is... I'll be polite and simply call it nonsense. "Gay people should have rights" and "gay people shouldn't have rights" are not opinions of equal value, and it's not "eating your cake and having it too" to say that the latter opinion is unwelcome. Second, there's a very clear relationship between the "left" topics you mentioned and the workplace; not so for the "right" topics. You can make an argument that abortion/contraceptives are work-related because of employer-sponsored healthcare (I think it's clear that employees should keep their noses out of each other's private medical matters, but... okay), but the rest are totally ancillary. If you want a "no politics at work" rule, then you wouldn't have conversations about guns (unless it's to advocate that your employer allow guns at work), you wouldn't have conversations about immigration policy (unless it's to advocate that your employer stop sponsoring visas), and you wouldn't have conversations about furries (unless it's to advocate that your employer ban furry sex in the workplace... which I don't think is a problem that anyone has). You know what you would still have? Conversations about discrimination in the workplace. Conversations about whether your employer's political dollars are funding violence. Conversations about whether your recruitment policies are unconsciously biased.

jlawson 5y ago
When you say, "all opinions are equally valid", what does the word "valid" mean? It seems to be this word is doing a lot of work and if you explore this your position will quickly collapse. Opinions are generally about moral issues - what we should do, what goals we should pursue. They are not about positive facts like "how many people live in America". In the arena of goal-setting there are indeed no objective facts. It is equally valid to want to pursue a global caliphate where all women are slaves to the men who own them and all gay people and apostates are executed, as it is to want to pursue a global social justice utopia (however you could even describe such a thing). There is no objective standard to reject either goal. There are simply preferences. What's more prefereable? Killing an unborn fetus at 3 months development, or obligating a mother to carry it to term? Why? How can you possibly say that your preference is objectively true? It obviously isn't. If you think your preferences are objectively more right than others, you need to explain what part of the nature of the universe makes it so. (Incidentally religious people have this explanation - it's because the creator of the universe declared that these are the best preferences.) If you want more reading, you can look up the difference between positive and normative beliefs. Your goal here is just to set up a system where the people with power, who happen to agree with your preferences, get permission to punish people who disagree with their preferences. This is 100% a belief conditioned on the fact that you know that people like you have the power. If the people with power disagreed with you you'd be a free speech advocate (as people of your opinion were a few decades ago). There is in fact no way to objectively set up a policy of "Allow the right opinions, and punish the wrong ones" and it's childish to say you can.

klyrs 5y ago

I've had a coworker complain about my casual use of blasphemy and management agreed that I should tone it down. It's not necessarily left vs right; it's aiming to reduce toxic behaviors that make a workplace unsafe for others. Not every "political opinion" belongs in the workplace, but I've heard about everything on your list but furries in the workplace and gone on to have productive working relationships with those coworkers, occasionally with a brief "agree to disagree" demarking a topic as unwelcome over lunch.

zdragnar 5y ago
I've had coworkers with whom I have had cordial disagreements regarding politics and this isnt the issue. When the head of your division uses the time before meetings to talk politics, it is toxic- the power dynamic isn't even. Coworkers can do the same when they publicly hold discussions and expect everyone to agree- the dynamic is off, and toxic. You simply can't have a civil, earnest conversation in a group chat or email setting, because it is too easy for the group to run away with a misunderstanding.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

duped 5y ago

I mean if we're talking personally, the end of my rope is insurrection. I would not tolerate sympathies towards the events of January 6th. If my manager or other senior staff began expressing them I would have to voice my thoughts on the subject and begin sending resumes. The idea that both sides are equal is just fallacious. One side is advocating to be more aware of systematic racism and the other tried to incite revolt while rejecting the validity of our last election. One is advocating for a large discussion and the other is working against democracy.

monoideism 5y ago
> One side is advocating to be more aware of systematic racism and the other tried to incite revolt while rejecting the validity of our last election. One is advocating for a large discussion and the other is working against democracy. On some level, you must be aware that the other side frames these issues differently than you do, but with the same ferver and honesty as you. I happen to believe you're both spouting a load of ill-founded, partisan-driven, ad hoc beliefs, so I'm yet another point of view. Oh, and "large discussion"? Most people who share your ideology at Google, Facebook, and the like seem much more interested in imposing their point of view on others than in any "large discussion". To they contrary, if we express disagreement in discussion regarding certain issues, they try (and often succeed) in having people like us fired.
- calvinmorrison 5y ago
  Nytimes did an infograph on political bubbles, ie are your neighbors all Democrats or Republicans? Turns out Republicans are the ones who are less likely to live in a bubble of conservative beliefs.
  - monoideism 5y ago
    > Turns out Republicans are the ones who are less likely to live in a bubble of conservative beliefs That's not surprising, given that liberal beliefs dominant our cultural landscape (eg: mainsteam media, Hollywood, social media, tech companies, colleges+universities, primary+seconday education, most corporations, etc, etc). It's pretty much impossible to live in a total bubble of conservative beliefs unless you live in a compound in a rural area. On the other hand, it's quite easy to live in a bubble of liberal beliefs in a typical large American city.