3 ms·

> Why don't we consider trying to pass laws that hurt your coworkers to qualify as "being nasty with coworkers"? Because "advocating for laws that potentially

> Why don't we consider trying to pass laws that hurt your coworkers to qualify as "being nasty with coworkers"? Because "advocating for laws that potentially negatively affect coworkers" and "actually being nasty with coworkers" is a difference in proportion of at least 100000 (maybe slightly less if your advocacy effects a lot of votes). By cancel-campaigning against Eich you basically 1) Discriminate against someone for a political view they held (5 years ago!) 2) Suffocate honest discussion/debate about any affected topic 3) Directly promote creation of cultural echo chambers You also make the workplace an observably more hostile place for anyone that leans more on Eichs side on the topic. On the other hand, what does the whole thing actually achieve? I don't even see accusations of anyone actually being affected, in the workplace, by Eichs views (and that would be the bare minimum to demonstrate actual harm).

wat10000 2y ago
And helping to pass Prop 8 does those same things but worse. What's your argument, that it shouldn't count because it probably didn't affect the outcome very much? "You put non-trivial personal resources into denying basic rights to people, but it's pretty small in the grand scheme of things so let's just ignore it" doesn't make much sense to me. You don't think it creates a hostile place for workers when their CEO is trying to deny them basic right?
- myrmidon 2y ago
  > What's your argument, that it shouldn't count because it probably didn't affect the outcome very much? No. My argument is that "being in favor of prop 8" is a defendable PoV. Firing someone for political/religious views much less so. > You don't think it creates a hostile place for workers when their CEO is trying to deny them basic right? 1) No. Calling state sanctioned marriage a "basic right" is IMO a stretch in the first place, but lets put that aside: Say Eich had voted for a proposition that was actually in favor of taking basic rights, like raising voting age to 21. Would that have been a reason to cancel his career five years later? Don't think so; does not affect work at all. Its your CEO, not your drinking buddy, and even in drinking buddies someone with conflicting or opposite political views can make for more interesting discussion; I see no appeal in spending life in an echo chamber. 2) It was not a cancel campaign championed by people actually affected, but "white knighting" instead (people very publicly advocating for issues that don't affect them, frequently without even any feedback or involvement from the actual victims). Might be wrong here and dont know everything about everyone involved, but thats what it looks like to me (judging mainly from John Lilly). 3) Running a cancel campaign like this is not gonna make everyone feel safe. People are just gonna try very hard to never be in the "outgroup" instead, with all the detestable social maneuvring that brings. No thanks. Would rather face honest bigotry than fake smiles, a bunch of lies and raw contempt behind the back.
  - wat10000 2y ago
    It’s not about the views. It’s about attempting to impose those views on others. I don’t care if someone thinks homosexuality is a horrible sin. I care if they think that means they need the law to reflect this view.

wat10000 2y ago

And helping to pass Prop 8 does those same things but worse. What's your argument, that it shouldn't count because it probably didn't affect the outcome very much? "You put non-trivial personal resources into denying basic rights to people, but it's pretty small in the grand scheme of things so let's just ignore it" doesn't make much sense to me. You don't think it creates a hostile place for workers when their CEO is trying to deny them basic right?

myrmidon 2y ago
> What's your argument, that it shouldn't count because it probably didn't affect the outcome very much? No. My argument is that "being in favor of prop 8" is a defendable PoV. Firing someone for political/religious views much less so. > You don't think it creates a hostile place for workers when their CEO is trying to deny them basic right? 1) No. Calling state sanctioned marriage a "basic right" is IMO a stretch in the first place, but lets put that aside: Say Eich had voted for a proposition that was actually in favor of taking basic rights, like raising voting age to 21. Would that have been a reason to cancel his career five years later? Don't think so; does not affect work at all. Its your CEO, not your drinking buddy, and even in drinking buddies someone with conflicting or opposite political views can make for more interesting discussion; I see no appeal in spending life in an echo chamber. 2) It was not a cancel campaign championed by people actually affected, but "white knighting" instead (people very publicly advocating for issues that don't affect them, frequently without even any feedback or involvement from the actual victims). Might be wrong here and dont know everything about everyone involved, but thats what it looks like to me (judging mainly from John Lilly). 3) Running a cancel campaign like this is not gonna make everyone feel safe. People are just gonna try very hard to never be in the "outgroup" instead, with all the detestable social maneuvring that brings. No thanks. Would rather face honest bigotry than fake smiles, a bunch of lies and raw contempt behind the back.
- wat10000 2y ago
  It’s not about the views. It’s about attempting to impose those views on others. I don’t care if someone thinks homosexuality is a horrible sin. I care if they think that means they need the law to reflect this view.