
Some Facebook Employees Unite to Challenge Its ‘Intolerant’ Liberal Culture - malachygr
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/28/technology/inside-facebook-employees-political-bias.html
======
badrabbit
Worked across very liberal and very conservative places in tech. Neither is
pleasant.

In my opinion, the American self-image and self-worth largely characterized by
subscription to a political ideology is the problem.

What bothers me is not dress codes,free meals,open offices,etc... But the very
idea that a company would display or promote politics in the work place.

Why are companies promoting "pride",donating to trump,telling workers to
attend 'lgbt tolerance' meetings,etc... Wth!!!!

If you are my coworker,I respect you as a colleague and a human being. Your
private life and beliefs are not mine to police or encourage in anyway.
Left,right,etc... Who cares? You're at work!

Look at it this way,if your company is pro something,it can be anti- that same
thing as soon as it becomes profitable to do so. Imagine not being able to
work in tech because how you vote,pray or who you associate with becomes
inconvenient to the industry.

This is my question for you: Are you willing to surrender your right to
believe what you want,associate with whom you want and support the political
causes that matter to you in exchange for your political views and ideology
becoming the norm you can't deviate from?

What is the alternative? Do politics with your friends, family and
community,associate with whom you want and believe what you want. When at work
respect your colleagues,not because of their politics and beliefs but because
1) they're human 2) you would want to be respected if you were in their shoes
3) out of respect for your own self

This isn't about left vs right or kkk vs blm. It's about corporations vs
individuals,who decides what views,beliefs and associations are acceptable.
Should society be run by the people or by the ruling class and their corporate
machine?

~~~
aluren
I don't mean any offense, but it has been my experience that people who can
afford to "put politics aside", so to speak, are people from demographics who
didn't have politics "happen" to them.

When you are gay or trans and a significant chunk of people find your mere
existence revolting, when you are black and a significant chunk of people
believe you are innately less intelligent and more prone to violence, when you
are a woman and a significant chunk of people believe you have no business
starting a career or working in tech or people don't believe you when you
claim to have been sexually assaulted, it's hard to treat "politics" as an
abstract debate where free-thinking intellectuals joust in the marketplace of
ideas. In these contexts, you actually _live_ "politics" \- every day, from
the moment you wake up to the moment you sleep. You can't opt out of it.

I am taking these examples because they resonate best with what are considered
"political" subjects in the West, but in more gruesome contexts, such as the
situation of Syria, "politics" is whether you are pro-Assad, pro-rebel, which
rebel group you are part of, etc. You can see how silly (at best) or insulting
(at worst) it can be to try and dismiss politics when they are actually a
matter of life or death.

Whenever there is a struggle, whenever there is an imbalance of power
perceived by some to be unfair, there is politics. If you do not perceive that
imbalance, it means you are on the better end of it, and your lack of stand is
simply apathy for the status quo. I don't seek to judge you for that, but
hopefully you may understand that some people are unhappy with the status quo
and wish that it change, and that's why they're getting political.

~~~
haberman
I understand your position. But too often people who have legitimate gripes
with society (like you say) are quick to classify legitimate disagreement with
an attack on their identity. Disagreement over a company's diversity policies
(for example) is not inherently an attack on anyone's personhood, but it is
frequently interpreted as one, and with great rancor.

One definition of power that is sometimes given: "To learn who rules over you,
simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." If the climate around
things such as diversity policies effectively suppresses dissent, then the
advocates of such policies have real power, whether or not they
psychologically perceive it.

~~~
aluren
>One definition of power that is sometimes given: "To learn who rules over
you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

I'm pointing this out because I see no one else did, but that quote is from
Kevin Alfred Strom, a neo-Nazi convicted for possession of child pornography
([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kevin_Alfred_Strom))
and he really meant to convey not-so-subtle antisemitic undertones with it.
I'm sure that's not what you meant, but I thought you'd wanted to know so you
won't have this pointed out in a more formal context by less charitable
people.

~~~
ibeckermayer
What a total sequitur. The point of the quote isn't who said it, it's that
it's true.

~~~
GW150914
You can spend all day criticizing people and organizations in power in the US.
The most powerful people, the most powerful companies, and everything else.
How is it true except as a dog whistle for conspiracies? You can literally
spend all day calling whichever president happens to be in power a cunt, along
with every congressperson, judge, General, and CEO. The people who literally
have the power of life and death over the citizenry are constantly criticized.

Maybe the origin of the quote is important to understand what it really means.
It’s a dog whistle to claim that insertgroup is really the power behind the
throne. It was a way of saying that because it’s considered bad form to be a
Jew-hating Nazi, and most of society will despise you for that, it means that
Jews really run things. Changing Jews to some other group doesn’t change much.
Claiming that gays or blacks or “lefties” or whichever group you think are
really in charge because you’re not supposed to denigrate them, isn’t a good
point, and using a Nazi pedophile’s quote to make it is telling.

------
tptacek
Good for them. The structural change needed in our industry is for labor (or,
to use a term we're apparently more comfortable with, "talent") to reassert
itself, and for tech giants to reconcile themselves to the fact that they're
accountable not just to their shareholders but to their employees. I hope this
gets nasty, and that these FB employees ultimately find recourse in the NLRA.

We forget that this industry is still young. It's probably not even in its
adolescence. When I started working, there was no such thing as an Internet
giant. There was Intel and Microsoft and 30 different PC clone vendors and a
bunch of small software shops competing to get their boxes on the shelves at
Microcenter. A lot of ideas we take as axioms --- for instance, the idea that
developers can't organize to coerce changes in their working environment ---
haven't earned that status, and deserve to be challenged.

~~~
euroclydon
The idea that a bunch of highly paid conservative software developers would
unionize and get the NLRB involved is rich.

~~~
tptacek
Why?

We're all generally well-paid (even with respect to the value we create). But
this whole message board is practically dedicated to the ways in which our
industry pisses us off, from confiscatory IP clauses to open offices to death
march projects. Who's to say labor can't organize simply for a better shop to
work in? That's not unprecedented.

~~~
euroclydon
I associate unions with homogenized labor, stratus of equivalent positions,
but we’re all too unique 10x butterflies for that. I mean, what part of your
career arc would have been better served in a unionized environment?

~~~
tptacek
Who says it has to be an according-to-Hoyle union? The NLRA covers all
concerted organized action. Start a professional association. The doctors and
lawyers have them. We don't get one? Why?

~~~
RandomOpinion
There's the ACM and IEEE already though?

~~~
tptacek
The ACM is an academic association. The IEEE should be more important
professionally than it is; one problem with the IEEE is that you have to have
a related bachelors degree to join.

Developers should start a new organization that represents the interests of
employees of the technology industry.

------
chrisco255
This has become a big problem. Look at WeWork. That company banned employees
from expensing meals that happened to have non-fish meat. I can't think of
something more personal than what people choose to eat.

They are imposing their beliefs about diet on employees. It's full blown
coercion. Some companies are taking the activism a bit too far.

~~~
taysic
They're not really banning eating such meals - they simply don't want to cover
their costs. I don't really see the issue personally. There are many things
companies don't want to cover which they get to decide on.

~~~
jakebasile
Say I work for WeWork and travel for work. I have a limited palate and like
almost nothing that could be considered vegetarian and even less that would be
vegan. I am now required to pay out of pocket for all my meals, when normally
I could choose to eat at home, which is not possible thanks to my job
requiring me to travel. Depending on the area I'm travelling to this could be
a large expense that under normal conditions the company would cover, but
because of the politics of the founders it isn't.

The arguments I've heard usually talk about how companies often don't pay for
alcohol (which I think is also ridiculous, if I'm travelling for work I will
be stressed and could use a nice drink to relax after the day). The flaw is
firstly that food is required to live, and also just because some company
doesn't have to provide for $ITEM doesn't mean it's not a nice thing to do for
your employees.

~~~
taysic
Okay, but that didn't convince me much personally. I think its absolutely in
the company's liberty to cover the costs of the things they want to cover - as
is the case with all benefits (other than gov mandated ones). They are just
perks after all.

~~~
AnimalMuppet
Disagree. I don't think of covering my expenses when traveling as a "perk". I
consider it part of the minimum standard of fair dealing.

And, for those who don't see a problem with this, do you see a problem if some
other company specifically won't reimburse for Mexican restaurants?

~~~
taysic
I see your point - I think a lot of things today boil down to: a substantial
number of people, and in this case science too, has agreed that one action is
"good" for the planet. However, not everyone agrees - some people feel that
all actions should be seen equally.

What I'm trying to say is that many would agree We Work are trying to do
something good for the planet here. Another group of people don't see it that
way.

Me personally - I would say in this instance the company should have liberty
to exercise their own preference (incl Mexican restaurants). If it is
ridiculous to their employees, they will quit. I believe in this case they
have a substantial number of employees who don't mind or understand their
reasoning.

Either way, I don't find it a human rights violation or anything.

------
throwaway_71501
Regarding 'only 100+ people out of 25,000 employees' comments - I would bet
that the total number of employees who disagree with mainstream PC liberal
views so prominent in our industry is about half, at least one third. However
- most are choosing to stay quiet.

I am posting this anonymously as well. While I don't work at FB, I work at a
'hot tech startup', and cannot risk being 'outed' as a conservative. I would
categorize my views as 'slightly right of center', very moderate, but it seems
like anything not agreeing with Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders' socialism
is equal to being called a 'nazi' in our industry.

I feel very sad about this state of affairs, and I applaud Mr. Amerige for his
bravery to do this. I applaud everyone who chose to publicly join him in this
effort, putting their careers and livelihoods at danger, risking never being
employed in Silicon Valley again.

------
wwweston
A couple of thoughts:

* As much as I enjoy forwarding and debating my own political ideas in settings where I think there's an opportunity, I've never considered work a primary venue for this, and the premise that political diversity should be a priority for a business is one that doesn't seem to have any kind of supporting argument. Companies exist to organize an economic activity. Other activity is incidental. Ideally your employment status is not affected by outside expressions. Beyond that, I'm not sure what you expect to accomplish internally. Especially if the gestalt is different.

* If Mr. Amerige is a fan of Rand, perhaps he should consider that those who own FB would, under Rand's philosophy, apparently be quite entitled to do whatever the hell they feel like with the company, obligate employees to take whatever position they like or leave.

* I've spent time arguing center-to-somewhat-conservative views on liberal websites like Metafilter. I've spent time forwarding nuanced religious or rationalist points in congregations of believing Mormons. I lean center left among family and friends who often lean pretty right. I know exactly what it's like to have to make a case in front of an audience that's not at all sympathetic to your point of view. Yep, sometimes it's super frustrating. I'm not seeing any discussion of particular consequences at Facebook, though, so it's impossible to tell if Amerige and any who agree with him are facing anything more difficult than the near inescapable social accountability for expressing a view where the stakes are a loss of some respect and gaining a bit of baseline hostility/distrust. And my experience is that even if it's an uphill battle, if you're patient and your position is genuinely well thought-out, it's often possible to make some measure of persuasion to people who you're giving both a reason to like you and a reason to think about what you're saying.

~~~
prewett
According to the article the problem is not that the owners are doing what
they want like Rand espouses, but hypocrisy, namely that they claim to be
tolerant and are in fact acting intolerantly: “We claim to welcome all
perspectives, but are quick to attack — often in mobs — anyone who presents a
view that appears to be in opposition to left-leaning ideology.” (But I'm
guessing Mr. Amerige wouldn't be much happier if were authentic and open about
not tolerating dissenting views, so you have a good point there.)

I don't see the need to debate political ideas at work, either, but if work
claims to offer an all-ideas-welcome forum, then it should actually be that.
My observation is that liberals tend to talk loudly about "tolerance" but are
pretty intolerant of ideas they don't like. Not that conservatives are
necessarily less intolerant, they just don't go around claiming to be
tolerant. Authentic intolerance, if you will.

~~~
wwweston
"Authentic intolerance" made me laugh and there's some truth to it.

The tolerance paradox comes up a lot, but I don't think it's that hard to
decode, really. Nobody has universal "tolerance" \-- everyone has things they
consider intolerable if they have values at all. Characterizing someone as
intolerant is essentially a somewhat pejorative way of saying that you've
found a boundary value for them and you don't think it's drawn in the right
place because it trespasses on some liberty you think you or someone else
should have. How defensible that is depends partly on the strength of the case
for the value and partly on whether any observing jurors share your
temperament.

And I think tolerance happens on different axes. For some people, tolerance
means allowing space for all kinds in society. For some it means maximal
ability to live as you choose. For some it means a free expression of ideas.

Whatever you call people who value one or more of these things (conservative,
liberal, progressive), if someone trammels in action or expression on any of
those values, it's not terribly surprising they might face some hostility
rather than conversational/social tolerance because _they 're challenging a
value of tolerance_.

When conservatives accuse left-leaners of intolerance, what I usually observe
is that a conservative has forwarded some sort of idea under which space for
all kinds in society or certain bands of acceptable behavior are limited, and
then they're surprised that they face hostility and dismayed that they can't
even say whatever they like without social consequences.

It's tempting to put conservatives as champions as speech at this point based
on the fact that left-leaners see some ideas as not just points of
debate/exploration but as attacks on values (which they do)... but of course
there's plenty of ideas conservatives don't like to the point they'll engage
with similar or greater hostility (see: kneeling during the national anthem).
I think _very_ few people are fully tolerant of any idea, and many of those
who are probably have been in a fortunate position in life where ideas rarely
have concrete consequences for them.

Your point about the values Facebook claims is well-taken, of course. This
discussion arguably takes on a different aspect to the extent that Facebook
tries to be quite liberal in its approach to speech and ideas. If that were to
apply internally, if it were to take the shape of a policy where employees
could openly discuss politics without fear of affecting their employment
status, that'd be quite remarkable considering how incidental at best (and
more likely friction-inducing) that is to the activity of most companies.
Perhaps FB claims it as an ideal without a whole lot of care about how it
actually plays out, perhaps it's just a PR move, or perhaps they genuinely
consider it as important. But even if they do... there's simply no way to
guard against diminished respect among co-workers if you're fond of Ayn Rand
and they've assessed her and found her severely lacking, and little way to
eliminate consequent individual hostility.

Is there any evidence that Mr. Amerige or others he holds solidarity with have
faced anything else?

------
ndespres
The manifesto states "There’s only going to be one core rule in the group, and
it’s that if you attack a person’s character, rather than their ideas, you
will be banned."

People whose ideas are on the wrong side of ethical will often say this sort
of thing- as though the two things, a person's character and their ideas, are
somehow not connected. I'm not sure where they get the idea that the ideas
they support indicate a lot about their character, and they will be judged
accordingly.

~~~
Veelox
Also in the memo he stats

>Your colleagues are afraid because they know that they — not their ideas —
will be attacked. They know that all the talk of “openness to different
perspectives” does not apply to causes of “social justice,” immigration,
“diversity”, and “equality.” On this issues, you can either keep quiet or
sacrifice your reputation and career.

You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to
ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission.

~~~
ndespres
>You shouldn't be called a racist because you think that the US should work to
ensure no one crosses our southern border without permission.

I would ask anyone who believes that the US should work to to control entry at
the southern border to question _why_ they believe this is an important thing
to focus on. What is the root of that belief? Why should the US be exclusive?
What benefit do you derive from keeping it exclusive, and why is the accident
of your birth somehow firmer ground of entitlement to citizenship than any
other abstract concept?

Perhaps they are not "a racist" but I strongly believe that the desire to
control the border is deeply rooted in racism in America, and anyone having
this discussion needs to be willing to consider the basis for their ideas.

~~~
rmc
Also interesting that they refer to the southern border. Is there something
different about the northern border? Different type of people, perhaps???

------
manfredo
As I have mentioned in other threads, of the dozens or possibly hundreds of
co-workers I've worked directly with during my time so far in Silicon Valley I
have met exactly one who disclosed conservative views and support of the
Republican party. Either one, there really is a massive lack of political
diversity to the extent that less than 1% SV developers are conservativez or
(more likely in my opinion) two, there is widespread fear of retaliation and
discrimination for making even relatively mainstream conservative views known.
And I wouldn't blame them for the latter. I routinely see thinly veiled
threats against conservatives in company slack channels (e.g. threatening
"Nazis" while subsequently calling border control proponents "Nazis" not long
after).

~~~
wrsh07
I find this incredibly surprising. Do you give them a chance to?

So many of my colleagues (at a big tech co) have expressed various
conservative views. Granted, I live in NYC, but this feels a bit like you're
experiencing confirmation bias.

~~~
manfredo
Yes, I've discussed politics with many of my coworkers. Few of them have any
hesitation discussing liberal standpoints. I can only assume that
conservatives are staying silent.

I can't claim to speak for conservatives, but I can totally understand why
they would stay silent given the atmosphere. See the reply to my other
comment, where a HN poster straight up says they would fire any employees that
support Trump:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864280](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864280)

~~~
wrsh07
> Yes, I've discussed politics with many of my coworkers. Few of them have any
> hesitation discussing liberal standpoints.

If the linked commenter were to say nobody would express their conservative
views to them, that wouldn't surprise me.

However, it seems like you'd be a bit more sympathetic (than the linked
commenter). I've found a number of colleagues from red states who
supported/support Trump (often for reasons posted in Altman's article about
crossing the aisle - single issue voters etc).

Lots of conservatives on Wall Street, too (many leave for big tech cos after a
few years).

Finally, I see a bunch of tech-libertarians, which is sort of a hybrid of some
conservative financial ideas and some progressive social ideas.

~~~
manfredo
I don't disagree with your experience in NY, but it isn't a very good
counterexample to my experiences in Silicon Valley. For what it's worth, I
grew up in and routinely visit the Seattle area and I don't think it has the
same atmosphere as the San Francisco and Silicon Valley area. I have met
plenty of conservatives in Seattle (well, mostly in the outer metro areas of
Bellevue, Kirkland, etc.).

~~~
wrsh07
Yes! It's possible that is the entire source of the discrepancy.

But I am still a bit surprised that you haven't at least run into some
libertarians in CA.

------
falcolas
A lot of hassle could be spared if we all followed one simple rule while at
work:

"In polite company, it’s not proper to talk about sex, religion, or politics"

No matter what you have to say on those topics, you'll step on _someone 's_
toes. There's really no good reason to talk about it at work unless you're in
a brothel, church, or a capital building.

~~~
thiht
Maybe it's a US thing? In France we regularly have somewhat heated (in the
sense that we obiously disagree) talks about politics, religion and so on but
it remains cordial becaus, you know, we're adults...

Isn't it simpler for everyone to behave like respectful adults even when you
fundamentally disagree than making a blanket rule to only ever discuss non
sensible subjects?

~~~
repolfx
French politics is very stable. Your leaders tend to be all very similar, at
least in recent years. Macron is not wildly different to Hollande etc.

Despite that, France routinely sees a lot of remarkably aggressive political
activism - farmers dumping manure on roads, the incident with the fishermen
pelting the boat with rocks a few days ago, huge quantities of striking and so
on.

I don't think there's anything special about France that makes French people
able to discuss politics in a more civilised way. If France were to see
significant change in politics the discussions would stop being 'adult' very
quickly. For example if you had a referendum and France voted to leave the EU,
"Frexit" would rapidly turn into a much more heated topic than it is even in
the UK, I bet. It's all about the stakes.

------
madrox
Has Facebook ever had anything close to cultural principles? At least Google
had "don't be evil" for a while.

This is such a clear mirror for what Facebook is going through itself. As a
company it never stood for anything except for growth and engagement at all
costs. When leadership doesn't stand for anything, it invites others to try to
guide culture.

If Zuckerberg had come out to say either the product or the company's culture
stands for something, it would put this all to rest...but he won't, because
growth and engagement at all costs.

~~~
ianai
I don’t buy that zuvkerberg is a liberal. He’s made it clear he doesn’t
respect anyone’s privacy nor honor their trust. He seems highly manipulative
wrapped in whatever phrasing works at the moment.

~~~
dnautics
Respecting personal privacy and honoring individual's trust is hardly a
liberal policy plank. For better or worse, the platform is predicated on the
state generally knowing better than the individual on social policy.

~~~
ianai
Not at all.
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism)

~~~
dnautics
I'm aware of classical liberals, but minus some minor differences the
contemporary term for them is "libertarian"; in my experience the only people
who use the term 'classical liberal' are libertarians seeking to distance
themselves from their own cohort.

------
jeffdavis
I had never heard of Alex Jones before. It doesn't particularly bother me if a
couple companies kick him off their platform.

But it was really disturbing that it was a coordinated move by all the major
social platforms at once. Wow. It's shocking that they would cooperate with
eachother on those decisions.

Secondarily, it undermines the idea that they can leave all kinds of bad stuff
on their network (libel, etc.) and pretend like they aren't the publisher.
They really want to have it both ways.

~~~
bitcurious
Is there any proof of coordination?

~~~
methodover
There's not, because there wasn't any.

It's like an angry drunk complaining that all the bars he's banned from are
coordinating to ban him. It's like, no, you were an angry drunk separately at
all of them.

------
vmarshall23
For fuck's sake. Don't people like _work_ at work anymore?

~~~
userbinator
The reason Facebook is so politicised and stuff like this comes up is because
it hosts user-generated content, and has explicitly chosen to decide what it
deems allowable beyond actual law. That makes it nearly impossible to keep the
politics out of it.

In contrast, something like a machine shop (random example) won't be
politicised much if at all, because the work doesn't revolve around making
political decisions.

~~~
antt
Have you worked at a machine shop?

During machine down time I've heard some of the most radical Stalinist
politics coming from people who you would think are only interested in
football and beer while trying to fix the lathe for an order that's due in 3
hours. By the same token I've heard some of the most extreme fascist views
too.

~~~
userbinator
I have no doubt that political conversations do come up, but they don't really
factor into the actual work that takes place --- probably because, as someone
who lead me through one warned, "the machines don't care who you are or what
you think. Get yourself in the wrong place and they'll eat you alive."

------
fastball
Seems like it's fairly true if they're already getting complaints from
employees while not breaking any actual company policies.

~~~
ctvo
And those employees complaining were told they're not breaking any company
policies. Their group is still open and nothing has been done against them.

What a controversy.

~~~
downandout
It actually is a sign of something terribly wrong with the company's culture.
If a notoriously liberal company determined that complaints about "racially
offensive" posts in this group were false, then one can reasonably believe
that the complaints were indeed false. That means that other employees were
simply lodging false complaints to interfere with this group's right to exist.

Think about that for a second. Other employees were so outraged by a tiny
handful of their colleagues banding together to express mildly conservative
views that they lied to the company about the content in this group in an
attempt to eradicate them from existence. That is the opposite of tolerance,
and it is reveals a toxic underbelly at a disturbingly powerful company.
Everyone, regardless of political affiliation, should be concerned by that.

~~~
abraham_lincoln
Is anybody really surprised that FB's internal culture could be toxic?

Look at the product and the mission.

------
patsplat
Duh corporations are intolerant of discrimination because discrimination is
ILLEGAL

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1957)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1991)

Guess what, corporations are also intolerant of drug use and other activities
that many Americans perform but are none-the-less ILLEGAL.

------
omot
I think this issue is tricky, because some political ideology that the "right"
expresses involve a statement of the identity of their coworkers. I find that
in the valley, people express diverse set of political economic ideologies,
but sensitive social issues are taboo. I think people probably shouldn't view
it as lack of diversity of political opinions, it's more that statements and
ideology expressed at work shouldn't unfairly be targeting a particular set of
identities, and that goes both ways. Like if you're white, straight, male, and
come from rural America you should never feel like you're being discriminated
against from people's political ideologies that target your identity, for
example statements like: "I believe that the government should deport white
straight males to increase diversity." If you are and HR isn't taking any
actions I believe that is grounds enough to blow the whistle for hateful
speech coming from the left.

~~~
username90
> some political ideology that the "right" expresses involve a statement of
> the identity of their coworkers.

That stereotype is the problem. Lots of people on the right have nothing
against women's rights, lgbt rights, black rights etc, but still gets treated
as if were against those things just for expressing unrelated conservative
talking points.

~~~
omot
Well what are some of those talking points? Remember I said fiscally people
are pretty expressive.

------
kartan
This thread is way out of control. Created by an anonymous account. And with a
lot of comments written in bad faith.

Can someone remove this so we can move on and continue with rational
discussions? Please? :)

------
mgiampapa
I worked for Facebook for almost 6 years and I wouldn't say it's culture is
any more liberal than the rest of the SF bay area.

For this population, they see their own views as normal and the center. While
from the outside conservatives think it's far left of center, the "dozens" of
employees who don't feel this way are the outliers. There are "dozens" of
employees who feel FB's culture isn't liberal enough. With an employee base of
tens of thousands you are going to have disagreements in philosophy, but
Facebook does nothing to hide the company culture in it's hiring practice.
There is no bait and switch going on. Other voices are heard, but if you have
a minority viewpoint you shouldn't expect the world to pivot around what you
think is right.

------
wellWisherToday
Let us say person C1 says: "If person A1 preaches/supports
discrimination/intolerance based on his/her belief, person A1 cannot complain
about discrimination or intolerance he/she faces. One cannot say I should not
be discriminated on any criteria, but I can discriminate others with some
criteria which the other doesn't agree.

A person B1 can have a moral compass that people should be treated as they
treat others. In which case person B1 may be totally fine being
discriminatory/intolerant toward A1 because of A1's intolerant/discriminatory
behaviour. Person B1 will be total toleralant towards others and will be
considered a tolerant person".

Now is person C1 preaching intolerance/discrimination? Perhaps not, as Person
C1 is preaching "treat others as you want to be treated" and may lead to
"intolerance toward intolerance only".

Maybe there are logical flaws in the above argument as most spiritual people
will not preach intolerance towards even A1. However I assume the spiritual
person will not hesitate to point out to A1 about "treat others as you want to
be treated".

However if A2 is preaching equality and having a different view on say some
other topic and faces discrimination, then people who discriminate should be
ready to face "discrimination".

One thing that people are making mistake is if A2 and A1 are similar on many
views and even if A2 disagrees with A1 on "equality", A2 gets clubbed with A1
and start being discriminated like A1.

~~~
PunchTornado
nobody right wing at facebook supports discrimination/intolerance against
other people. Nobody says there, on that page, KKK quotes or preaches nazism.

Being ring wing doesn't mean you're intolerant:

\- no general free healthcare, only private for people that work

\- lower taxes for everyone

\- no gender or racial quotas in hiring or entry at university (against
positive discrimination)

\- no free trade agreements with other countries

\- no aid to poorer countries

\- close the boders to immigrants

\- no refugees

How is any of this discriminating or intolerant? I see it as a different
opinion. And I am a liberal, immigrant myself and don't agree with those
political statements

~~~
wellWisherToday
I agree with you. All the examples you gave should be seen as different
opinion and a person should be able to have that and work peacefully.

However if someone says that certain people are more capable because of their
gender will you call it discriminatory? (I would think it is).

~~~
PunchTornado
of course, because you then look at the gender before hiring someone and
that's discrimination.

however, it is not discrimination if someone is against favouring a certain
gender in hiring to achieve a gender balanced workforce. that's just his
opinion and should be able to say it without repercussions.

~~~
wellWisherToday
Yes completely agree.

------
intopieces
I must be naive, because I cannot think of any political topic I would be
discussing at work. How is this intolerance of right-wing ideology being
expressed? What views specifically are being not-tolerated?

Without these specifics, it's hard to understand the problem.

~~~
Crespyl
Diversity practices in hiring, for example. In the case of Facebook, things
like moderation/curation of the various news feeds and arguments around
"suppression" of certain topics.

~~~
intopieces
>Diversity practices in hiring, for example

I’m a hiring manager, but I don’t work in HR. I follow HR guidelines and ask
relevant policy questions. Nothing more. I don’t express an opinion about our
hiring practices around diversity.

>moderation/curation of news feeds

The article doesn’t say that all these individuals raising the issue work on
one feature. That would be a relevant detail. My reading of this piece
suggests that a swathe of individuals don’t like company culture — the bits
that bind employees above the work itself - and that’s the part I can’t grasp.
I work at a Fortune 50 company and I have no idea the political or religious
affiliations of my coworkers. I could guess, but don’t want to.

I just don’t see how a company culture can have an impactful political bias to
people who mind their own business. The article doesn’t specify any specific
instance, so I can’t form an opinion on the validity of their claims.

------
mychael
Thank you for speaking up Brian Amerige. We need more people like you.

------
gweinberg
Scare quotes are around wrong word.

~~~
alexandercrohde
Those aren't scare-quotes. Those are normal quotes. The title is quoting "Some
Facbook Employees."

------
JBReefer
The comments in this thread are shocking, Inquisition level stuff. I can't
believe I spend time here.

Remember when HN was tech stuff? Now it's:

    
    
      manfredo 16 minutes ago 
      
      The following views were listed on the memo:
      
      * Support of President Trump (e.g. This and Palmer Lucky's campaign contributions)
      
      * "All lives matter"
      
      * Criticism of Islam's human rights record.
      
      * Calling the company's art politically radical .
      
      Which, if any, of these views don't deserve respect?
      
      reply
      	
      	
      brainkim 9 minutes ago | 
      
      The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and were it up to me 
      I would fire anyone who held those views. 
      Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel these given everything that’s been going on these days.
    

Who are these people? Is this just satire? Am I just getting old, and no one
cares about freedom to disagree, debate, etc? Do people not have historical
context about suppressing dissenting opinions, even if you hate them?

Am I crazy, and the world has just moved on to be horrible?

~~~
haha99
Enable "showdead" in your profile and you will see that anything that moves
beyond the left is promptly flagged and, sometimes, the account gets banned
for "starting flames".

~~~
JBReefer
But absolute freedom of speech IS A LEFT WING OPINION! Is no one here old
enough to remember the fight over pornography or offensive language in
art/music/movies? That was the right trying to shut down speech they disagreed
with via corporate power! These people are _not_ liberals, they're something
else that's new and _terrifying_

~~~
topspin
"But absolute freedom of speech IS A LEFT WING OPINION"

That only holds if you're willing to perform enough mental gymnastics to
somehow transmogrify the gulags, mass graves, firing squads and famines that
the USSR, Mao Zedong, Cuba, Pol Pot, etc. employed to deal with dissenters
into features of right wing governance.

Or just pretend these things don't count...

~~~
BadassFractal
One could argue they were "punching a nazi" of their time. The establishment
of a dictatorship of the working class was a mission for which no human
sacrifice was too great.

Obviously we're nowhere near that in modern US, BUT the hints of "violence in
exchange for a dissenting opinion" and "what I don't agree with is Nazism" are
unpleasant to say the least.

~~~
happytoexplain
>the hints of "violence in exchange for a dissenting opinion"

I couldn't agree more. I've seen both actual violence and extreme
glorification of violence against people of the opposite political affiliation
more and more over the past couple years. Many people seem to dismiss the
calls to violence as "trolls", which is actually probably true, but I have to
wonder if there is much of a difference between a troll who calls for violence
and loves to see people get attacked at rallies, and a person who would
actually be happy about these things if they became worse than they are now. I
feel like there used to be a solid distinction, but I'm not sure any longer
that there's really a hard line between all "trolls" and people who would
actually enact these things, given the power (and given no significant threat
to themselves, of course).

~~~
BadassFractal
In addition to the violence aspect, there's also total power asymmetry in
bigoteering. Calling someone a Nazi, a white supremacist, a racist, a bigot, a
homophobe, a xenophobe, a misogynist, a transphobe, a cultural appropriator,
whatever other trendy moral shortcoming du jour, with no need for supporting
evidence whatsoever, has no downside to the accuser. Accuse away. You're doing
a service to society.

The entirety of the burden is always on the accused.

------
BadassFractal
Always a good time to bring up the excellent
[http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

~~~
curioussavage
Wow, that was a great read!

------
ianai
The Republican Party has moved further and further right for the last 30+
years. When one side of an argument goes extreme it almost forces the other
side to react severely. A similar stressor works on young adults. They’ve
spent almost the entirety of their lives up until the point they move out or
go to college at their parents’ discretion(s).

~~~
AmericanChopper
I don’t think this is true at all, I think it’s the middle that’s moved. I was
quite left leaning when I was a teenager, but some of my views would be called
‘alt-right’ or extreme today. My values haven’t really changed that much, but
they’re much more aligned with the right today. (Downvoted within seconds,
very nice).

~~~
Analemma_
Name me a couple of these views which haven't changed, and qualified you as
left-leaning as a teenager but alt-right today.

~~~
philwelch
Not @AmericanChopper, but I can easily do that:

1\. Believing in the near-absolute protection of free speech, even that which
I find repugnant.

2\. Acknowledging that sex differences are less than 100% culturally
determined.

~~~
nepeckman
Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when
you're not the direct target of that "free speech." Not trying to assume your
specific social location, but I know a lot of centrists who feel as you do,
and they are white men. They might be repulsed by Nazi's who advocate ethnic
cleansing, but I have to actually worry about what those people might do if
they take power. I have a vested interest in making sure they cannot
radicalize more people, and as such I am firmly for censoring them.

~~~
philwelch
> Believing in near-absolute protection of free speech is a lot easier when
> you're not the direct target of that "free speech."

Which is why I have a hell of a lot of respect for David Goldberger, the
Jewish lawyer for the ACLU who defended the free speech of Neo-Nazis in 1977:
[https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html](https://kansaspress.ku.edu/978-0-7006-0941-3.html)

The problem with your line of reasoning is that it forces you into what most
on the left consider a very difficult fork.

PREMISE: Imposing both government sanctions and private sector no-platforming
is a justifiable response to murderous ideologies.

(This is a decent, good-faith attempt to interpret the basic principle that
seems to motivate people who say the things you say. In isolation, before you
read the rest of my argument, I'm willing to bet that you would accept this
premise as written. If you didn't, let me know.)

1\. Communism is a murderous ideology. (See: all historical records of the
20th century.) Therefore, McCarthy did nothing wrong, and the members of the
Hollywood Blacklist were merely the Alex Jones of their time.

2\. Communism is not actually a murderous ideology. Therefore, Stalin did
nothing wrong.

The fork is basically that, once you accept the premise that allows you to
censor and no-platform Nazis, you either have to be a McCarthyist or a
Stalinist, or at least an apologist for one of them.

~~~
nepeckman
While I do agree with your stated premise, I disagree with the notion that
agreeing with the premise forces me to choose between McCarthy and Stalin. My
counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted nonmurdous
views as well. It's my impression that people advocating socialist policies
(or any policy not strictly capitalist) were also targeted. I feel I can
object to this, while also objecting to horrors wrought by Stalin. I'm not
advocating the censorship of conservative views in general, just the murderous
views expressed by a small faction.

As a personal side note, I've been enjoying this discussion with you. If you
are interested in keeping it up, I'll reply sometime in the morning EST.

~~~
philwelch
> My counter point is this: McCarthy started a witch hunt that targeted
> nonmurdous views as well.

Well, maybe. It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which
was not government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed
card-carrying members of the Communist Party USA, which was directly
bankrolled from Moscow. Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse
than, say, Alex Jones or James Damore, to name two recent victims of the
current left-wing “witch hunt”.

The main reason the various bans on political parties in Europe haven’t
devolved into witch hunts is because the bans are in name only. The former
communist states in Europe tended to ban the communist party, which
immediately went back into business under another name, and no one cared. And,
sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably even
more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about being
fascists. At that point you’re just tabooing words and symbols. If you
followed the same policy in the US, you wouldn’t actually end up censoring any
KKK or neo-Nazis, because they would just rebrand as “pan-European
nationalists” or something and pursue the same platform.

It’s most reasonable to set that bar, if it must be set, at direct and
unambiguous incitement of violence, which would not include things like flying
swastika flags. Communist Party USA was never banned, unlike Nazi, fascist,
and communist parties across Europe, and I agree with that policy. The
marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is much
smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever allowing or
normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And honestly, neo-Nazis
are an even bigger joke.

Any ideology that’s unpopular enough to ban isn’t popular enough to represent
a real threat. The people banning it, though—they’re the ones to keep an eye
on. Antifa literally march down the street wearing black shirts and beating up
people they perceive as enemies, and they don’t see the irony in that. Sure,
they should go to jail as soon as they lay hands on anyone, just like anyone
else should, but I’m not going to begrudge their right to wear ridiculous
black outfits and wave black-and-red flags around, and they’re a lot more
likely to end up sending folks to death camps than those neo-Nazi clowns.

~~~
nepeckman
> Which makes those screenwriters far, far, far worse than, say, Alex Jones or
> James Damore, to name two recent victims of the current left-wing “witch
> hunt”.

I'm honestly surprised to see Jones and Damore mentioned in the same sentence.
Jones deliberately spreads misinformation and personally response for
directing a lot of hatred and harassment towards innocent people. Damore just
published some unpopular (and in my opinion, harmful) views. I lean far left,
and even I think that situation was mishandled.

> It turns out that the much-condemned “Hollywood blacklist” (which was not
> government action, just the act of private businesses!) only listed card-
> carrying members of the Communist Party USA

From
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollywood_blacklist):
Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the
blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let
alone suspected of being Communists: "On March 21, 1951, the name of the actor
Lionel Stander was uttered by the actor Larry Parks during testimony before
HUAC. "Do you know Lionel Stander?" committee counsel Frank S. Tavenner
inquired. Parks replied he knew the man, but had no knowledge of his political
affiliations. No more was said about Stander either by Parks or the committee
– no accusation, no insinuation. Yet Stander's phone stopped ringing. Prior to
Parks's testimony, Stander had worked on ten television shows in the previous
100 days. Afterwards, nothing."

> And, sadly, the crypto-fascist parties like BNP and FN and AfD are probably
> even more powerful than they would be if you just let them be honest about
> being fascists.

This is speculation. I'm aware that these groups will continue rebranding and
resurfacing, but I don't think a passive approach is effective here. I think a
perfect example of this is the Unite the Right rally 1 year ago, vs the
reunion this past year. After the events a year ago, many white supremacists
were doxxed, shamed, and fired. This year, no one came out to the reunion. If
the rally a year ago was a success, do you think that would be the case? I
think its reasonable to expect that more people would come out for the event,
embolden by previous successes. I know that all the people involved in the
rally last year are still white supremacists. My concern is them
indoctrinating more members and growing in power. And I think passively
letting them have a platform enables them to reach more people, embolden more
people, and generally grow in strength.

> The marginal risk of Stalinism that is incurred by not outlawing CPUSA is
> much smaller than the marginal risk of totalitarianism inherent in ever
> allowing or normalizing the censorship of any political ideology. And
> honestly, neo-Nazis are an even bigger joke.

Sure, they may be a joke now. But they are less of a joke now than the were 10
years ago. They have a larger microphone, and while I can't speak for
enrollment numbers, the members they have are more active and more visible.
They have someone in office that they view as "their guy". By letting them
have their platform, we risk letting them grow more. And that is not a
marginal risk to me. For me, the marginal risk is that we will ban a non-
murderous ideology. I see that both less likely, and safer for me personally,
than the alternative.

~~~
philwelch
> Scholar Thomas Doherty describes how the HUAC hearings swept onto the
> blacklist those who had never even been particularly active politically, let
> alone suspected of being Communists...

I was referring more to the original Hollywood Ten. Although, I'm curious to
hear how the witch hunt you describe would not, in fact, happen with a
similarly concerted attempt targeted at far-right views.

> I think a perfect example of this is the Unite the Right rally 1 year ago,
> vs the reunion this past year. After the events a year ago, many white
> supremacists were doxxed, shamed, and fired. This year, no one came out to
> the reunion. If the rally a year ago was a success, do you think that would
> be the case?

If anything, that's an argument that we _don 't_ have to ban Nazis, because
all of that happened without any kind of laws in the first place.

Although, I think this also demonstrates what complete rank amateurs the
Charlottesville crowd really was. If they had followed the most basic
precautions taken by the antifa/black bloc crowd and just _covered their
faces_ , it would have been a lot harder to dox them.

The only reason these people are more visible is because the media is putting
a spotlight on them to drive the narrative that they're a growing and
increasingly dangerous group. It's very reminiscent of the opening stages of
the McCarthyist witch hunts.

~~~
nepeckman
> Although, I'm curious to hear how the witch hunt you describe would not, in
> fact, happen with a similarly concerted attempt targeted at far-right views.

This is a concern of mine, which is why I took time to differentiate Jones and
Damore. I see one as having a legitimate cause for deplatforming, and the
other as reactionary.

> If anything, that's an argument that we don't have to ban Nazis, because all
> of that happened without any kind of laws in the first place.

I'm curious, do you see a difference between social deplatforming, and a
technological deplatforming? Those Nazi's are no longer able/willing to
express their ideas in physical space because of pressures exerted by private
citizens and institutions. As a society, we've limited these peoples' free
speech, and I view that as A Good Thing because it has resulted in lower
attendance at subsequent rallies. In the same vein, big tech companies may
also be limiting the access to free speech of these people, but I'm okay with
that given the views of the people they are limiting.

~~~
philwelch
> This is a concern of mine, which is why I took time to differentiate Jones
> and Damore. I see one as having a legitimate cause for deplatforming, and
> the other as reactionary.

Well, isn't that the thing? If you already accept as a given that censorship
is legally and morally justified and you turn it into a mere policy decision
of who is worthy of censorship, there is a real and present danger of that
mere policy decision turning into outright and explicit oppression.

It's like a lot of the classic civil liberties scenarios, like how the
"ticking time bomb scenario" can justify torture. So let's talk about that
case, by way of analogy. If there's a ticking time bomb, and you can verify
within minutes where the bomb is, you can just club someone with a wrench or
something until he tells you, and if it turns out the bomb isn't where he told
you, you keep torturing him until he tells the truth. In that single,
specific, narrow circumstance, you might be able to justify torture. But once
you've made a policy of "torture is sometimes justified", how the hell are you
going to make sure they only use it in the extreme edge cases where it's
called for? More likely, from a rule-utilitarian standpoint, you just end up
causing a lot more pain and suffering by letting a bunch of people get
tortured unnecessarily.

So, even if there are individual cases where you can have a net reduction in
expected totalitarianism and state murder by censoring totalitarian, murderous
ideologies, allowing such censorship risks those exact ideologies sneaking in
through the back door.

In the free speech case, it's even more dire, because the standard propaganda
narrative of murderous, totalitarian ideologies seems to be, "$BOOGEYMAN is
murderous and dangerous and we need to restrict civil liberties in order to
protect you from them". Nazis never campaigned for universal liberties; they
just campaigned for installing themselves as the oppressors and their
perceived oppressors as the victims, while pooh-poohing anyone who did
advocate for universal liberties.

> I'm curious, do you see a difference between social deplatforming, and a
> technological deplatforming?

I'm actually idealistic enough that I don't think _anyone_ , even literal
Nazis, should be fired for their political views as long as they don't bring
those views into the workplace.

I think the pattern of tabooing certain forms of extremism causes more
problems than it solves. If you don't actually let racist people say overtly
racist things, they're going to say racist-adjacent things that are moderate
enough to be held in good faith, like "unrestricted immigration is culturally
disruptive" or "the Muslim world doesn't seem to share our cultural values
when it comes to respecting women", and then you can't tell the racist trolls
apart from people who genuinely hold those moderate views, and now we're at
the point of absurdity and indirection where the racist trolls themselves post
slogans like, "it's OK to be white", which makes it really, really awkward for
those of us who aren't racist trolls, but don't have any rhetorical space left
to argue against the scores of far-leftists who regularly state that,
actually, it isn't OK to be white.

~~~
nepeckman
> It's like a lot of the classic civil liberties scenarios, like how the
> "ticking time bomb scenario" can justify torture...

That's all good, but we still have a bomb to find. If we say censorship is off
the table of acceptable methods to combat Nazis, what are our tools? I'm going
to stress again that I haven't seen any convincing argument that a passive
approach will work here. The arguments all _sound_ great ("Just ignore them
and let them fizzle out!") but I'd like some historical precedents to look at
before I can believe that's true. Additionally, the passive approaches don't
mention that these groups are active and recruiting. They have plans and
playbooks for radicalizing more members. I feel it is legitimate to worry that
they will continue to galvanize and grow in power unless we stop them. But I
am open to hearing alternative solutions to censorship, as long as they are
more thought out and convincing.

> If you don't actually let racist people say overtly racist things...

I've got almost the same question here. In your ideal world, how do we respond
when someone says something racist? Do we ignore it? Do we try to teach them
why they're wrong? Do we denounce them and call it a day? These are serious
questions.

~~~
philwelch
> In your ideal world, how do we respond when someone says something racist?
> Do we ignore it? Do we try to teach them why they're wrong? Do we denounce
> them and call it a day? These are serious questions.

Well, there are two options:

If a lot of people seem to give credence to their ideas, then we absolutely
have to debate those ideas in the public sphere, as overtly as possible, and
because we happen to be right, we will prevail in an open debate.

If, as seems to be the case today, almost nobody gives credence to their
ideas, then we just let them make fools of themselves, kind of like how no one
minds David Icke's claims about how the British royal family are secretly
reptilians from outer space.

> Additionally, the passive approaches don't mention that these groups are
> active and recruiting. They have plans and playbooks for radicalizing more
> members. I feel it is legitimate to worry that they will continue to
> galvanize and grow in power unless we stop them. But I am open to hearing
> alternative solutions to censorship, as long as they are more thought out
> and convincing.

I would actually question the notion that these groups are growing in size and
influence. While it's hard to have a perfectly controlled experiment, here's
an interesting data point. One of the most politically successful overt white
supremacists, David Duke, has run for political office on numerous occasions,
including two campaigns for a US Senate seat in Louisiana. Duke went from
polling at 11.5% (141,489 votes) for a Louisiana US Senate election in 1996 to
3% (58,581 votes) for a Louisiana US Senate election in 2016.

~~~
nepeckman
> If, as seems to be the case today, almost nobody gives credence to their
> ideas, then we just let them make fools of themselves, kind of like how no
> one minds David Icke's claims about how the British royal family are
> secretly reptilians from outer space.

Is that really the same though? The key differences as I see them: 1) History.
Racism has been taught for many years (for a long time "scientifically
proven"). I'm guessing Icke's views are rather new. The leads to 2) Cultural
relevancy. There are plenty of racist people out there, each generation
teaching the next. I'm not sure how many people believe that about the royal
family, but I'm guessing not as many. This matters because 3) Racists are
harmful. Unless Icke is about to break into the palace to prove his theory, he
seems pretty harmless. We can leave him alone to make a fool of himself.
Discrimination and hate crimes are not things I want to leave alone, I'd like
them to end.

> I would actually question the notion that these groups are growing in size
> and influence.

While size may be debatable, I think influence is less so. The data I've seen
says hate crimes are up in numbers. The president refuses to call these groups
terrorists. Social media is filled with their propaganda and troll mobs. This
doesn't feel like a group that is losing power or influence.

------
seefer
The same sentiment needs to happen with Amazon before Bezos fully transforms
into a Bond villain. He already looks the part.

------
artemisyna
Turns out, Facebook employees are people, span the whole gambit of opinions,
and have a couple of flame-war baiters?

------
saudioger
Kind of moot considering how hard Zuckerberg stanned for Peter Thiel. How much
was that Palmer Luckey payout?

I'd argue that if you're working for Facebook you're kind of superficially
liberal to begin with. Zuckerberg is only liberal until he has to worry about
his bank account.

~~~
civilian
(what does 'stanned' mean? I can't figure out if it's a typo.)

~~~
aslkdjaslkdj1
Usually means an obsessed superfan but have evolved to mean someone with
unwavering support of a person or entity. Came from the Eminem song "Stan"
about a crazy fan.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_(song)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stan_\(song\))

>The name of the eponymous character has given rise to a slang term online
which refers to overzealous, maniacal, overly obsessed fans of a celebrity or
personality; the term has been included in the Oxford English Dictionary.

------
alexnewman
Can someone help me with this paywall?

~~~
EB66
If you've browsed a lot of NYTimes articles without a paid account, then
you'll get paywalled. Using a fresh incognito window usually takes care of the
problem. If that doesn't work, I've found that visiting their articles from a
Google News link will remove the paywall for the first article you visit.

TBH if you visit them enough to get the paywall, then you probably ought to
just pony up the reasonable monthly subscription fee.

------
megaremote
> Why are companies promoting "pride"...telling workers to attend 'lgbt
> tolerance' meetings,etc... Wth!!!!

You ask this question, then answer it in your very next line. People don't
respect everyone. They are intolerant.

~~~
badrabbit
Why is disrespecting or demeaning a coworker for any reason allowed? If I
disrespect you because your haircut is unfashionable,would that be ok? If the
meeting was about supporting neo-nazis ,would that not be saying the conmpany
tolerates neo-nazis and does not welcome those who hate neo-nazism? Yet, you
should respect your neo-nazi coworker,even if you were not told so.

~~~
gameswithgo
It seems there are many valid reasons to disrespect a coworker, and being a
neo-nazi is one of them.

You cannot hide a violent philosophy behind a shield of "it is my beliefs".
None of us shall ever accept it. If it becomes the law that I must accept neo
nazis, I still will not.

~~~
badrabbit
No,they are your coworker. Period. They're not your friend. They are not
promoting neo-nazi beliefs at work or direspecting other coworkers,what
business of yours is their neo-nazi activity? Peace has a price.

~~~
woodruffw
It's my business because, should they have it their way, I wouldn't be alive.

Asking people to be tolerant of ideologies that pose an existential threat is
contradictory at best.

~~~
austhrow743
People have cooperated with existential threats for economic gain for a very
long time. Trade today, kill each other tomorrow. It's not contradictory at
all.

~~~
r00fus
And what kinds of societies and organizations so these dire situations blossom
in? Crime organizations, autocratic regimes and slavery countries.

Sorry I don't want to work for or live in that kind of setting. I wouldn't
want anyone to be forced to do so.

------
ralusek
And it has been my experience that people who have politics "happen" to them
from "the moment [they] wake up to the moment [they] sleep" in large part
simply _perceive_ that to be their existence.

I have read countless articles and posts at this point claiming that "America
doesn't care about black bodies" and that black people in America should "fear
for their lives every day," all in regards to the perceived danger of police
shootings. In that example, despite this perception by not only those
populations themselves, but a large majority of the population at large, the
facts are that 1000 people (0.000003% of the population) are killed by police
annually. 24% of those killed are black. No person has a statistically
relevant chance of being killed by police, and yet it is not uncommon to hear
it stated that this is simply this segment of the population's "lived
reality." It isn't, and that's the problem.

I actually think that this is a central theme to many of these discussions,
where one population is claiming that there is a substantial disadvantage to
having a certain characteristic, whereas the counter states that there is
either no such disadvantage, or its magnitude is misrepresented.

In any event, I think that there is often merit to both cases, and I think
what you're seeing with the Facebook group here is simply a response to the
growing perception that the conversation has become increasingly one-sided in
the large SV corporations. Stating, as James Damore did, that the lack of
female representation in tech is not appropriately attributable to workplace
bias was a fireable offense. That's not okay.

~~~
ProfessorLayton
Except one doesn't have to fear being killed by the police to be wary of them.
The fact is that POC are arrested disproportionately to their population size.
Being incarcerated is enough to cut your chances of a job offer or a call back
by %50[1]. There are many underlying reasons as to _why_ POC people are
arrested more, including remnants of systemic oppression, but that is another
argument for another time.

It's easy to hand-wave other's hardships away when one doesn't experience them
first-hand, but that doesn't mean they don't exist.

[1] [https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-
sheet/](https://www.naacp.org/criminal-justice-fact-sheet/)

~~~
prostoalex
Let's say someone doesn't want to hand-wave other's hardships away. Out of
multiple possible venues, such as

(a) political action (voting, city council meetings, writing to a congressman)

(b) civil action (rallies, protests, community organizing, civil disobedience)

(c) work action (send an email, post on internal slack channel)

(d) public relations (letter to an editor, an op/ed in local paper, getting a
local news station to cover the issue)

is (c) the most effective for achieving the desired results?

~~~
ProfessorLayton
I’m not sure I follow, none of those actions are mutually exclusive, so any
and all combinations are available, even if one type of action is more
effective than others.

------
didgeoridoo
This thread is a dumpster fire. @dang, maybe it’s time to pull the plug?

~~~
sdinsn
Or, he can let discussion continue. People posting things that you disagree
with is not a "dumpster fire".

------
mce1123
This is why it's fruitless to argue with Marxists--they subjugate truth to
layers of shifting context.

Non-Marxist: Is <objectively true statement> true? Marxist: No. <objectively
true statement> was/is/will be used against my political tribe, therefore it
is false. Non-Marxist: Well, can it just be "technically" true in this narrow
case if we ignore the greater context? Marxist: I don't understand what you're
talking about. Non-Marxist: Can anything be both true and politically
inconvenient? Marxist: What a stupid question. Of course not!

It's a wonder how so many of these people get into tech. How can you study
science if your ideology invalidates Newtonian mechanics because it was
invented to help England bombard natives?

~~~
dang
If there's one thing you could have done to make this ideological hell worse,
it's drag Marx into it.

We detached this comment from
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864571](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17864571)
and marked it off-topic.

~~~
mce1123
buddy, this thread is Marx all the way up and down.

but point taken. I'll keep overt politics off this site from now on.

~~~
dang
> this thread is Marx all the way up and down

That's tarring with way too thick a brush. If we're going to have non-dumb
conversations here, there needs to be room for some detail.

------
xexers
[Deleted]

~~~
seanmcdirmid
They have complained and have even asked for reparations.

~~~
majos
They have also been _granted_ reparations of about $160 million.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Liberties_Act_of_1988)

------
xtracerx
Not all views deserve respect. Depending on what specific views they are
talking about a lot of the ones circulating should not be tolerated.

~~~
mbrumlow
The problem is who decides what views should or should not be tolerated? Some
would say if you eat meat you should not be tolerated. Others might think pro-
choice ideas should not be tolerated.

That aside, we really need to figure out as a society how to fix a few
notions. 1) You have some sort of right to not be offended. 2) You must get
outraged at anything you disagree with.

There once was a time when two people with different ideas could be in the
same room as each other. But long are those days. Now we live in a time where
simply having your name printed next to somebody's name who made a joke you
were offended by calls for public outrage and immediate removal of the
offending persons name from said list.

Things are in a very bad way...

~~~
hegz
There was never a time when different ideas were tolerated. The things we
tolerate have changed. Maybe the time you speak of was the time when all of
your ideas were tolerated.

In the past people tolerated the idea that it was OK to own slaves, now we
dont. In the past people did not tolerate the idea that it is OK to be gay,
now we do.

~~~
taneq
I grew up with the understanding that just because someone thought differently
to me didn't mean they were wrong, and that it's OK for people to agree to
disagree on some things while still remaining friends. This view has
definitely gone out of vogue in the past 10 years.

~~~
mwfunk
Nothing has changed with regard to reasonable people reasonably disagreeing
over reasonable differences. The Overton Window has changed for sure, but
that's what it does. I struggle to think of any perspective that has moved out
of the Overton Window over the past 10 years that I regret losing. If anything
the Overton Window has moved backwards in recent years to better accommodate
the Alex Joneses of the world, but I don't see how that's a good thing.

~~~
eli_gottlieb
>The Overton Window has changed for sure, but that's what it does. I struggle
to think of any perspective that has moved out of the Overton Window over the
past 10 years that I regret losing.

Honestly, I want the Overton Window to be consistent with what people actually
_do_ in _real life_. I've begun to grow uncomfortable with a political
environment in which we all need to hash-tag #AbolishICE, when we all know
that the actual abolition of the American border is outside the Overton Window
for the solid reasons that _nobody has come up with a plan to do it_ ,
including the people _leading_ the hash-tag campaigns.

If we are to have an Overton Window, I want it to be the same one for
rhetoric, actions, and policies. I don't want this world we're getting where
we all mouth extremist rhetoric and then pass mild reformist touch-ups to the
status quo.

~~~
damnyou
* Abolishing ICE doesn't require abolishing the border entirely, just abolishing a police force that gets as much funding as the FBI even though it is dedicated to one small subset of violations.

* It is OK to have ideals that you work towards while knowing that you won't necessarily reach them.

------
spacehome
There are dozens of us! DOZENS!

~~~
dang
Ok, we changed 'dozens' to 'some' above.

~~~
mbrumlow
I was fine with the title, as it reflects how the article frames it, but
whatever.

~~~
dang
The issue is that it was provoking people into posting dumb comments.

------
neo4sure
Wow, DOZENS. At least we now know who they are.

------
emmanueloga_
I guess sooner or later someone will link to these, so may as well be me :-)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

[https://xkcd.com/1357/](https://xkcd.com/1357/)

~~~
adventured
If you're a social media platform that possesses such a vast, overwhelming
monopoly as what Facebook has, then you are capable of _censorship_. Your
status as a monopoly means the normal market rules no longer apply to you.
That you comply with the first amendment should properly be a pass-through
legal requirement as a condition of your status as a monopolist.

If they resist cooperating with that designation, despite their monopoly, then
we must regulate them.

Split off Instagram and WhatsApp from the core Facebook platform as an anti-
trust action. At a minimum legally mandate that all monopolist platforms must
equally enforce all of their terms of service for all users and must do so in
a publicly verifiable manner. If they fail at that task, drown them in fines
until they go bankrupt or stop selectively punishing some groups while
allowing others to do the exact same things without punishment. Ideally,
regulate Facebook and all such monopolist platforms that deal with speech as a
form of public square.

I dislike Roy Moore and his politics. That doesn't mean I think it's ok for
all the car companies to conspire together as a group monopoly and deny Moore
the ability to purchase a new vehicle to punish him. Or that it's ok for the
couple of telecom monopolies to get together and deny him access to the phone
networks.

Denying voices access to the public square - Facebook's social monopoly - is
equally reprehensible. The most important speech we protect, is the speech of
the ugly minority, which is what both the far left and far right often
represent.

I don't like seeing Antifa clad in black body armor, marching around with
Soviet flags urging the adoption of Communism and the overthrow of the US
Government. I similarly don't like to see it on Facebook. I fundamentally
disagree with them. We should protect their right to that speech and their
right to have access to Facebook's monopoly platform.

~~~
stretchwithme
Facebook doesn't have a monopoly over expression, so it still quite possible
to express one's opinion in a myriad of ways.

Like this here.

Freedom of expression doesn't equal a right to distribution.

------
spicymaki
I find it ironic that conservative employees are arguing about increasing
diversity (specifically political diversity). Usually conservatives support
culture fit as a concept to bolster opposition to hiring more underrepresented
minorities and women. They usually claim that diversity is antithetical to
efficiency and having shared cultural values (usually the dominant culture's
values) is the key to successful teams. Sadly for the conservatives they are
in the out-group at Facebook. Perhaps this struggle will help cultivate some
empathy to others who are in out-groups. Alas, I am not holding my breath.

~~~
manfredo
I think the criticism is more about the selectiveness of diversity. Companies
in SV are very keen on establish practices to bring about the hiring of more
women, African Americans, and Latinos often with the justification that a
broader set of viewpoints is crucial I'm creating a good working environment.
But no one bats an eye when most employees can't name a single Republican or
conservative on their team or department. It's easy to conclude that this
whole diversity initiative isn't actually about bringing in people with
different viewpoints.

For what it's worth, my current employer has easily the most diverse tech
workforce in terms of gender and race but it's also easily the most
monocultural company one I've worked at.

------
commandlinefan
Facebook is about to have a James Damore moment.

------
aluren
It should be noted that many views espoused by what Americans call 'liberals'
or 'left-leaning' people are in fact the mainstream in the EU (such as issues
about abortion, gun control, death penalty, healthcare, and so on) and
commonly accepted by almost all parties except what we'd call 'far-right'
ones. So I'm wondering: when those articles pop up calling the tech world/the
Valley/company X a 'liberal monoculture' or whatever, are they implying that
it is also the case for the entirety of a continent? Or is it simply that, as
in Europe, a minority of people with fringe and socially unacceptable views is
wishing rather loudly that their views weren't so fringe and socially
unacceptable?

~~~
philwelch
> It should be noted that many views espoused by what Americans call
> 'liberals' or 'left-leaning' people are in fact the mainstream in the EU
> (such as issues about abortion, gun control, death penalty, healthcare, and
> so on) and commonly accepted by almost all parties except what we'd call
> 'far-right' ones.

That's a massive oversimplification:

* Ireland only recently legalized abortion, which has been legal in the United States since 1972. The legal status of abortion in the United States is in some ways far more liberal than in many European countries, and in other ways less.

* American courts have routinely protected levels of civil liberties that are beyond those recognized anywhere in the EU.

* Unlike some EU countries, the United States neither has a state-established religion, nor regulates or prohibits the public exercise of religion.

* The United States has stricter corporate regulations and higher corporate taxes than many EU countries. The right-wing Heritage Foundation's "Index of Economic Freedom" ranks the United States 18th, below Switzerland, Ireland, Estonia, the UK, Iceland, Denmark, Luxembourg, Sweden, and the Netherlands. _According to actual American conservatives_ , countries following the famed "Nordic Model" are in fact, _even more capitalist than the United States_!

~~~
krrrh
I'll add a few of my favourites:

* Women only achieved the federal vote in Switzerland in 1971, and the for local votes the last hold-out was forced to acquiesce by the Supreme Court only in 1991.

* There is no country in Europe with abortion laws as permissive as those in the United States (or Canada, but that's it's own strange case). Portugal didn't legalize abortion until 2007, and it is only available on-demand up until the 10th week. Abortion is _still_ illegal in Ireland (in the process of reform after last May's referendum). In Germany abortion-on-demand is only legal in the first 12 weeks, and requires mandatory counselling with a 3-day waiting period.

* While no EU states practice the death penalty because it is a condition of membership, majorities in France, the Baltics, Czech Republic, and several Eastern European countries still [support it]([https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/55sze2/support_for...](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/55sze2/support_for_the_death_penalty_in_europe_1548_x/)), and in the UK support was up around 70% less than a decade ago. Current support for the death penalty in the US has registered as between 49 and 55% in the last few years. Not totally out of line in terms of public opinion, though there are more states that have the death penalty in the US obviously.

* I was stunned to be in a German class in Berlin with students from several EU countries, most of them in their early 20s, and also be the only one present who had no problem with homosexual adoption, which was most stridently opposed by representatives of catholic countries. I was the only North American.

~~~
philwelch
In practice, many US states have arbitrary barriers to abortion that make it
harder to actually get one in parts of the US than in parts of the EU, so I
didn’t want to make too strong of a statement. But certainly, I don’t know of
any European countries with a national or federal law regarding abortion that
is as permissive as the federal statutory and case law of the United States.

------
sbenitoj
Anyone want to take bets on this resulting in another James Damore style
firing, but at FB instead of Google this time?

