11 ms·

Probably a wise decision, and not just because of conflicts between the different sides (I can't imagine there's a large pro-life contingent at Meta), but becau

• endurance789xx 4y ago
  Totally agree! I feel helpless and afraid of the Supreme court ruling. At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression!
  • thr0wawayf00 4y ago
    > At the same time, I have seen firsthand how ridiculous such internal discussions have become at Twitter, and they silently take away so much of my work time and put me on the path of depression To be frank, this is Twitter in a nutshell to an outsider like me: a major personal time-waster that typically ends in anger and depression. I guess it's not surprising that internal conversations for the platform that owns a significant share of the public discourse can't figure out how to discuss topics like this, but that sure makes me sad. Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? If Twitter can't figure out how to do it, then who can?
    • Syonyk 4y ago
      > Is it even possible to have effective conversations about these topics online at all? Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost. Prioritizing longer form, in depth content, and discouraging "rapid reaction hot takes" helps a lot. The social media companies could optimize for this, and you see it on HN with the "Sorry, this particular thread is getting short, snippy, and too rapid, you can't reply to it for a while" mechanism. But short, snippy, and angry is good for engagement. So it remains.
      • thr0wawayf00 4y ago
        This makes sense. Unfortunately, the cynic in me thinks that even if this is technically feasible (i.e. the software could be designed to facilitate healthier discourse), the reality is that the money would never allow it to happen as you rightly point out. So given that, is it actually possible? I don't think so.
        • tbrownaw 4y ago
          I have a ton of blogs in my rss feeds. Occasionally one will have a response to something a different one published a couple days or weeks previously, and sometimes they'll even go back and forth a few times. Sometimes some of the ones with guest writers will host a similar kind of exchange all in one place.
      • Tomte 4y ago
        > Yes. Just not at scale, and not in a way that prioritizes ad revenue via "engagement" at all cost. Only if there is some prior trust, if only by virtue of getting along for some time. If you generally like the other person, and they come up with some incredibly stupid take you're more inclined to listen and ask for clarification than if the other person is unknown to you and says something that seems mildly wrong. Political discussion is possible if there is a pre-existing and lasting relationship.
  • landemva 4y ago
    • BrainInAJar 4y ago
      Yeah, just abandon all your friends and family (and don't worry about them, they're on their own), whatever life you've got set up and just move! it's easy!
      • landemva 4y ago
        When the issue is controlled at the federal level, those disagreeing would need to move to a different country. Moving to a different State is easier.
        • BrainInAJar 4y ago
          A person who "disagrees" with a federally protected right can simply not exercise that right (don't get an abortion.)
    • thr0wawayf00 4y ago
      It's worth pointing out that states like Texas passed a law that allows Texas residents to sue anyone that aids a Texas resident with receiving an abortion.[0] So if I live in California and my friend from Texas comes out to stay with me while they undergo the procedure, I could be sued under Texas law even though I'm not a Texas resident. It's not as simple as just picking which state you want to live in. Also, picking a new state to live in isn't an option for millions of people. 0: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulations-texas.html https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/09/us/abortion-law-regulatio...
      • landemva 4y ago
        • thr0wawayf00 4y ago
• Flankk 4y ago
  There's way too much emotion in politics these days. I would like to see a return of rational discourse. I've had my fill of both the screaming liberals and the dusty conservatives. Most of the complex issues deal with morality so it's probably all for naught. The tip of the morality pyramid is God for most people. No point using empirical evidence when you don't believe in it to begin with.
  • deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  • killdozer 4y ago
    • Flankk 4y ago
      Emotions are feelings. You don't have control of them but you do have control over your actions and your speech. If we agree that policies should be rational, then we agree that emotions are non-productive here. The human rights you are talking about are not fundamental in any way, they are contrived. If the state does not protect human life, then nobody will. The issue is not as simple as you've made it out to be.
      • alisonkisk 4y ago
      • deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
    • heywoodlh 4y ago
      > like we approach discussions around kubernetes I've already deployed my CloudNative Political Belief System in a fault-tolerant EKS cluster with a fully implemented CI/CD pipeline. > Yes i wish people would stop being so emotional about their rights being stripped from them On a more serious note, I appreciate this sarcasm as my wife and I were devastated about this news because of how we feel it impacts us (we're done with having kids and the idea of getting pregnant again due to the rare chance of contraceptive failure is pretty scary for us). I feel like I am pretty sympathetic to the intention behind being both "pro-life" and "pro-choice" and this decision to overturn Roe vs Wade still made me feel very upset. As this sarcastic comment eludes to, I am sure that others are far more devastated by this (imagine if you were a pregnant person planning on getting an abortion in Texas right now). I definitely have been re-evaluating my lack of sensitivity when I have asked or expected others to be level-headed when something infringes on what they feel is important. It has been a paradigm shift for me to feel so impacted by this -- and I'm not even a woman. My reaction to Roe vs Wade being overturned has definitely has highlighted my privilege in my life. I'm not saying the parent comment of asking for less emotion in politics is being insensitive -- I just have always held a similar perspective of "less emotion in politics would be better for everyone" and for me I think it was often coming from a place of privilege.
• mjmsmith 4y ago
  I could certainly imagine a larger pro-life contingent at Facebook than other tech companies. Business Insider posted an article in 2019 on Facebook data showing that its "best-performing content is almost entirely from right- and far-right-wing publications and personalities" [1] It's not entirely unlikely that in the intervening years, left-leaning employees have been more likely to leave, and right-leaning employees more likely to join. [1] https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-right-wing-echo-chamber-data-executive-pushback-2021-7 https://www.businessinsider.com/facebook-right-wing-echo-cha...
  • Mezzie 4y ago
    I'd expect FB to have more of a pro-life contingent than say, Twitter, but still small to my perspective. (I live in a purple district in a purple state, so it's not uncommon for half and half workplaces to exist). I'd also expect that the majority of FB's right-leaning employees are of a SV libertarianish bent, and most of them are pro-choice or apathetic. FB strikes me as a company with a very mercenary, self-interested workforce more than a partisan one.
• tomc1985 4y ago
  I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants to weigh in on -- but several had nothing to do with reproductive rights: ACAB, or reparations, for example. And then, to make it even worse, they went on to tell the crowd that you HAVE to care about these issues if you care about Roe v Wade. And if you don't, then "get the hell out of our way". So either you agree 100% with the hivemind and their dated BLM script, or fuck you. To say nothing of the fact that the person shouting this stuff seemed to cherish just how many different labels she could attach to herself to appear more credible. I consider myself a staunch independent and this was downright insulting. The operatives instigating all of this do not want people making rational points with their minds, they want a mental hegemony to act as a bedrock for their political war machine. Given that and how political discussions seem to be playing out everywhere, I don't think anyone should be supporting these kinds of discussions at work. Should companies willingly allow space for crowdsourced political brainwashing?
  • rayiner 4y ago
    The irony is that if it wasn’t for intersectionality, there’s a good chance Democrats could have held their traditional ambivalent stance on immigration, and Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected and wouldn’t have gotten those Supreme Court picks. Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest, Black people in the south) to win elections. Half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion, but 90% vote Democrat. I wonder what it’s going to do to Democratic turnout in Georgia if donors in New York and California make the 2022 and 2024 elections all about abortion.
    • TMWNN 4y ago
      >Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest This faction's support for Democrats is rapidly disintegrating, based on the massive shift to Trump seen in the Texas border counties in 2020. Like, 30 points' worth of movement.
• david38 4y ago
  “The issues” themselves aren’t even fully agreed upon, especially if they’re not believed to be core by everyone. Everyone believes that the start of human life is a core issue. It’s the basis for the pro-life movement. It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). There are other things some people believe are core which others don’t believe even exist: * many people are happy with this ruling because they want to bring mens’ right to “paper abortion” to the front. The argument is if she can do whatever with her body and not be subject to something undesirable for nine months, than he should have the same right since his hardship can last 18 years. The supporting arguments include absolute control means absolute responsibility (if pregnancy was accidental and she decides to keep it, responsibility is hers) and others, along with the greater discussion of perceived bias in family court. Opposing arguments mostly center around the welfare of the child. * some people are of the opinion that “if you’re not a woman, shut up”. Others are using that phrase to support their opinion on trans recognition. Still others are using that phrase to highlight situations where women have gained influence in what many men might call “mens spaces” The reality is pregnancy is a two-party result and so it’s impossible to expect one party to quietly step aside, more so when there is skin in the game. This involvement in fact helped win R v W in the first place!
  • lamontcg 4y ago
    > It’s also a core component of the pro-choice movement (that it doesn’t start that early, thus not killing babies, etc). That banning abortion leads to the deaths of thousands of young women. Pretty sure we all agree that a girl's life starts before she can get pregnant.
    • gruez 4y ago
      1. where are you getting "deaths of thousands of young women" from? According to the CDC the mortality rate associated with live births is 23.8 per 100,000. In the US there are only 629,898 abortions per year. Multiply those numbers out, and you only get 150 deaths. 2. even if you accept that there would be "deaths of thousands of young women", I doubt those deaths would sway the opinion of someone who thinks each abortion is murder (ie. 629,898 "deaths" from abortion vs "thousands" of "deaths")
• thrown_22 4y ago
  There is no need to understand anything past the law for why Roe vs Wade was a terrible decision when it was made. The legal theory it was based on has only gotten shakier since then. Here's Ginsberg explaining why it was on life support 10 years ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pVnvBCzTyI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pVnvBCzTyI In short: we do not have a right to privacy any more. That a majority of rights we took for granted rested on that implied right will come as a shock to a large number of people who supported vaccine passports and mandates and vice versa. You will be forced to show proof of covid vaccination at the court house while having your interracial marriage dissolved. Welcome to America.
  • rayiner 4y ago
    The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. Even Thomas doesn’t disagree that there are implied rights. His view is that they originate from the “privileges and immunities” clause, not the “due process clause.” But nobody disagrees, for example, that marriage is a right protected by the Constitution (although they disagree on what counts as marriage).
    • thrown_22 4y ago
      >The “majority of implied rights” do not rest on the right to privacy. For example, interracial marriage (*Loving v. Virginia) was decided on Equal Protection grounds, although privacy was a secondary basis. That's enough for the court to hear a case on it again. Along with cases on gay marriage, anal sex and contraceptives. A year ago I made the case that if we can force people to divulge their vaccination status then we can force people to divulge their sexual history. If a new disease showed up we could well ask if they had anal sex and lock them up in quarantine if they had. With the current outbreak of monkeypox and the current court that isn't a thought experiment any more. Liberals have spent the last decade hacking away at the right to privacy as hard as they could, the vaccine mandates being only the latest and greatest attack on personal freedoms from the party which supposedly stood for individual rights. This is not rocket science. Anyone could have seen this coming, but we were too busy owning the conservitards to notice that we were destroying the bedrock of the last 50 years of social progress. Well here we are.
• loldk 4y ago
• GoodJokes 4y ago
• BrandoElFollito 4y ago
  I do not think that each get is ignoring the important parts of the other. I think they think that these important things are simply wrong. A foetus is "alive" since the conception. "Wrong" says the other side, it is alive when (something). Contraception and sex ed are key. "Wrong" says the other side, you can just be abstinent and learn as you go because this is natural. Ignoring would be simpler, because you could realize that what you are ignoring actually makes sense. We are in a case where each side has well defined views on the important things of the adversary.
  • feet 4y ago
    Why should people be forced into abstinence? Why are republicans trying to make contraceptives illegal?
    • BrandoElFollito 4y ago
      I have no idea (I am French and we thankfully do not have this problem). My point is that the adversaries do not ignore the important points of the other side. These are usually the important point for them as well, they are just exactly at the other side of the spectrum. This is why there is no way for them to come to consensus as the differences of opinion are about these points. It is not like someone, when hearing the arguments of the other side, would say "oh, I did not think about this because i thought it was important"
      • feet 4y ago
        • nathanaldensr 4y ago
          Murder is okay as long as my religion says it is.
          • feet 4y ago
            It's honestly bizarre that the same people in the US who were screaming about Sharia law are now pulling this dumb crap
• ck2 4y ago
  It's not politics, it's religion trying to force their own beliefs onto an entire country. Except that's not the kind of country USA is supposed to be like some middle-eastern countries for example. In the USA you are allowed to believe/practice whatever crazy religion you want. But your rights stop at another person's autonomy. But also unjustly in the USA the corporation has way more rights than the individual, every time and that's perpetuated by every "side" of political power.