6 ms·

People shouldn't, in general, have to resign for their mis-steps, even if somebody gets offended. Who benefits from a society where a mistake or unpopular view

People shouldn't, in general, have to resign for their mis-steps, even if somebody gets offended. Who benefits from a society where a mistake or unpopular view ends your career?

shadowgovt 4y ago
That depends heavily on the severity of the mistake or the nature of the unpopular view. I personally like Google's approach to this internally: mistakes are to be expected and are often a sign of bad process, not faulty people. But egregious repetition of mistakes of the same kind indicates a failure to learn and grow that can slate someone for dismissal, and treating one's coworkers as less than human is also a short path to the door. (There are some outliers also. Crafting yourself into a walking Title VII violation ties the company's hands regardless of whether they'd be willing to let an employee grow and change, because the law isn't structured that way).
- peanutcrisis 4y ago
  But what if their unpopular views are rooted in evidence, yet goes against what's morally fashionable (at present)? Who would adjudicate this and why should we trust their judgement, especially when bad optics could become a concern? For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. However, there are activists who are trying to override empirical findings to justify their ideas about gender (I have no horse in this race). Furthermore, their voices have found a home in organisations like big tech. In such a case, and given the zeal of these activists, wouldn't someone who remark that sex is binary (in a casual conversation about biology) be punished? Or to put it more precisely, how can we trust those in authority to fairly judge that the innocent remark made isn't a "mistake"? In a climate where "speech is violence" and "intent doesn't matter", people are free to project their views onto others and accuse them of tall crimes. Without free speech, the case I've mentioned above seems likely to end up in unjust persecution. Unfortunately, my hypothetical scenario isn't theoretical, but has happened in academia already. The system you proposed doesn't seem immune to this.
  - atq2119 4y ago
    > For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. This is such an interesting example for why free speech protections are important, but good faith discussion culture is even more important. The first sentence is correct, the second isn't, when taken literally. The overall thrust of the statement still has merit, but it pays to be careful about one's phrasing. To be clear, biology is messy and there are exceptions, which is why biological sex is not literally discrete in the sense that, say, binary logic is discrete. But it's also fairly reasonable to say that this is one of those cases where the exceptions confirm the time: There is a spectrum, it's just incredibly focused around two points. The two extreme groups around this discussion both completely distort this nuanced observation. On the one side, you've got people that pretend that because the bimodality isn't perfect, it doesn't matter at all (and saying that it matters is hate!). On the other side, you've got people who pretend that there is no nuance to the bimodality (and many of them do actually hate people who don't fit perfectly into the binary). It's pretty frustrating (to put it mildly), and free speech or lack of it has nothing to do with why it's frustrating.
    - yodsanklai 4y ago
      > The two extreme groups around this discussion both completely distort this nuanced observation. AFAIU one group think gender should be a social construct, rather than a biological one. I don't this whole debate has even been about the 0.1%(?) who are not XX or XY.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > AFAIU one group think gender should be a social construct, rather than a biological one. No, one group, pretty much without exception, recognizes that gender always has been a social construct, and that it has historically been socially constructed differently in different culture. The other side may or may not recognize that; that’s not actually the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is that the first side things that the proper social construction of ascribed gender is to align it with the subject’s gender identity. The other side, whether they frame it in terms of “gender isn’t real, only biological sex is”, “gender should reflect biological sex”, or in any of a variety of other terms, believes that the correct social construction of ascribed gender is that it should be based on some aspect or combination of aspects of biological sex (often based on a stereotype that elides the fact that choosing different aspects of biological sex for this purpose would result in different assignments.) [Members of the first group may, in fact, view gender identity as a biological sex trait, in which case their disagreement with the second group can be viewed as a disagreement over which aspect of biological sex should be the basis.] > I don’t this whole debate has even been about the 0.1%(?) who are not XX or XY. Not being XX or XY isn’t the only biological divergence from simplistic stereotypes of biological sex that occurs.
- dbsmith83 4y ago
  That sounds nice, but then look at James Damore. I don't think he treated anyone less than human. He had an unpopular opinion and Google cowered to activists
  - shadowgovt 4y ago
    Due to the nature of Google's approach to self-management, his "unpopular opinion" immediately constituted creation of a Title-VII hostile work environment. Google didn't have a lot of options when he chose not to back down. He can certainly support his opinion, but he can't do it in the context of an American workplace by law.
    - dbsmith83 4y ago
      I don't think you can read the law in good faith and make that claim
      - shadowgovt 4y ago
        We don't have to guess because while a final NLRB ruling on the topic was not given (due to Damore withdrawing his labor complaint for unlawful termination), the published memorandum from Jayme Sophir regarding the case suggests strongly that judges would have ruled Damore's speech unprotected and, therefore, the termination legal. https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 """ [] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [] effort to cloak [] comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers... Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Party’s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected. """
        4y ago
psychphysic 4y ago
It makes sense in a church.

People shouldn't, in general, have to resign for their mis-steps, even if somebody gets offended. Who benefits from a society where a mistake or unpopular view ends your career?

shadowgovt 4y ago

That depends heavily on the severity of the mistake or the nature of the unpopular view. I personally like Google's approach to this internally: mistakes are to be expected and are often a sign of bad process, not faulty people. But egregious repetition of mistakes of the same kind indicates a failure to learn and grow that can slate someone for dismissal, and treating one's coworkers as less than human is also a short path to the door. (There are some outliers also. Crafting yourself into a walking Title VII violation ties the company's hands regardless of whether they'd be willing to let an employee grow and change, because the law isn't structured that way).

peanutcrisis 4y ago
But what if their unpopular views are rooted in evidence, yet goes against what's morally fashionable (at present)? Who would adjudicate this and why should we trust their judgement, especially when bad optics could become a concern? For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. However, there are activists who are trying to override empirical findings to justify their ideas about gender (I have no horse in this race). Furthermore, their voices have found a home in organisations like big tech. In such a case, and given the zeal of these activists, wouldn't someone who remark that sex is binary (in a casual conversation about biology) be punished? Or to put it more precisely, how can we trust those in authority to fairly judge that the innocent remark made isn't a "mistake"? In a climate where "speech is violence" and "intent doesn't matter", people are free to project their views onto others and accuse them of tall crimes. Without free speech, the case I've mentioned above seems likely to end up in unjust persecution. Unfortunately, my hypothetical scenario isn't theoretical, but has happened in academia already. The system you proposed doesn't seem immune to this.
- atq2119 4y ago
  > For instance, biological sex is binary/bimodal for all intents and purposes. It is discrete, and very much not a spectrum. This is such an interesting example for why free speech protections are important, but good faith discussion culture is even more important. The first sentence is correct, the second isn't, when taken literally. The overall thrust of the statement still has merit, but it pays to be careful about one's phrasing. To be clear, biology is messy and there are exceptions, which is why biological sex is not literally discrete in the sense that, say, binary logic is discrete. But it's also fairly reasonable to say that this is one of those cases where the exceptions confirm the time: There is a spectrum, it's just incredibly focused around two points. The two extreme groups around this discussion both completely distort this nuanced observation. On the one side, you've got people that pretend that because the bimodality isn't perfect, it doesn't matter at all (and saying that it matters is hate!). On the other side, you've got people who pretend that there is no nuance to the bimodality (and many of them do actually hate people who don't fit perfectly into the binary). It's pretty frustrating (to put it mildly), and free speech or lack of it has nothing to do with why it's frustrating.
  - yodsanklai 4y ago
    > The two extreme groups around this discussion both completely distort this nuanced observation. AFAIU one group think gender should be a social construct, rather than a biological one. I don't this whole debate has even been about the 0.1%(?) who are not XX or XY.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > AFAIU one group think gender should be a social construct, rather than a biological one. No, one group, pretty much without exception, recognizes that gender always has been a social construct, and that it has historically been socially constructed differently in different culture. The other side may or may not recognize that; that’s not actually the point of disagreement. The point of disagreement is that the first side things that the proper social construction of ascribed gender is to align it with the subject’s gender identity. The other side, whether they frame it in terms of “gender isn’t real, only biological sex is”, “gender should reflect biological sex”, or in any of a variety of other terms, believes that the correct social construction of ascribed gender is that it should be based on some aspect or combination of aspects of biological sex (often based on a stereotype that elides the fact that choosing different aspects of biological sex for this purpose would result in different assignments.) [Members of the first group may, in fact, view gender identity as a biological sex trait, in which case their disagreement with the second group can be viewed as a disagreement over which aspect of biological sex should be the basis.] > I don’t this whole debate has even been about the 0.1%(?) who are not XX or XY. Not being XX or XY isn’t the only biological divergence from simplistic stereotypes of biological sex that occurs.
dbsmith83 4y ago
That sounds nice, but then look at James Damore. I don't think he treated anyone less than human. He had an unpopular opinion and Google cowered to activists
- shadowgovt 4y ago
  Due to the nature of Google's approach to self-management, his "unpopular opinion" immediately constituted creation of a Title-VII hostile work environment. Google didn't have a lot of options when he chose not to back down. He can certainly support his opinion, but he can't do it in the context of an American workplace by law.
  - dbsmith83 4y ago
    I don't think you can read the law in good faith and make that claim
    - shadowgovt 4y ago
      We don't have to guess because while a final NLRB ruling on the topic was not given (due to Damore withdrawing his labor complaint for unlawful termination), the published memorandum from Jayme Sophir regarding the case suggests strongly that judges would have ruled Damore's speech unprotected and, therefore, the termination legal. https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 https://www.nlrb.gov/case/32-CA-205351 """ [] statements about immutable traits linked to sex—such as women’s heightened neuroticism and men’s prevalence at the top of the IQ distribution—were discriminatory and constituted sexual harassment, notwithstanding [] effort to cloak [] comments with “scientific” references and analysis, and notwithstanding “not all women” disclaimers... Once the memorandum was shared publicly, at least two female engineering candidates withdrew from consideration and explicitly named the memo as their reason for doing so. Thus, while much of the Charging Party’s memorandum was likely protected, the statements regarding biological differences between the sexes were so harmful, discriminatory, and disruptive as to be unprotected. """
      - 4y ago

psychphysic 4y ago

It makes sense in a church.