US Politics Mega-thread - Page 8441

On August 17 2017 03:05 Plansix wrote:

From someone who spent a lot of time studying the rise of fascism and authoritarian governments, that is how you beat them. Fascist, the KKK, Nazis and the alt-right have no interests in free exchange of ideas or any of the liberal democratic ideals that hold up our Republic. But they express those views in the hopes of obtaining a platform to gain power. They have no respect for the rule of law, good faith or human rights. They simply lie about respecting those to gain power. Our democratic system is an barrier to their goals, not something they want to protect at all costs. The way you beat Nazis and the KKK is to deny them new recruits and followers, which we have failed at in recent years. You don’t give them a platform along side people champion equality and expect anything productive go come out of the discussion. America has fundamental rights that will not be debated. And the first one is the right to life. To live in this country free of fear of being killed by the goverment or other citizens without cause. The KKK and Nazis won't even agree that every citizen has the right to life, so the debate is over before it starts.

Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.

On August 17 2017 03:17 xDaunt wrote:

I'm not going to argue the point as it pertains to fascists, the KKK, and Nazis, but you have no real basis for lumping the Alt Right in there. It'd be like me arguing that everyone on the Left is a communist just because there happen to be some communists on the Left. It's intellectually lazy at best. And to Nina's point, and contrary to popular belief, there is quit a bit to talk about intellectually as it pertains to the Alt Right. Vox Day came up with one of the better formulations of what it is with his 16 points:



Source.

Now, how many of those are compatible with National Socialism? Would it surprise you that he refers to them as "Alt Reichtards" and even rejects the idea that Nazis are on the right at all?

On August 17 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:

Xdaunt, I’ve been following the rise of the “alt-right” since 2014, well before you were ever aware of it. They are just the rebranding of the KKK, Nazis and other anti-democratic groups in the US. And to be honest, its been a real bummer to see how sold themselves as just another political view points to conservatives like yourself. I know that was their plan, but it is really troubling how effective it has been. There is no debate with these folks, including Bannon. They don’t respect our system of democracy.

On August 17 2017 03:17 ticklishmusic wrote:


farva had a great sartre quote about that, actually



there is precious little honest debate to be had with some people.

On August 17 2017 02:28 Jacenoob wrote:


The memo was a month old when it became viral. If they had fired him for disagreeing with company policies they would have fired him within this period. But he didn't even get a warning until it went viral. So no this was not the reason for firing him.

They fired him because a scientific truth (or if he was unprecise at certain points, even an argument about it) was deemed unacceptable by the left-dominated media which started a dishonest smear campaign against the employee. So yeah, from that point it is understandable that Google fired him. But the media campaign itself that caused his firing is nothing else but a barrage of literal fake news. Calling him a woman hater, a sexist or even alt-right is absolutely outrageous.

Technology companies such as Facebook Inc., Twitter Inc. and Google parent Alphabet Inc. encourage employees to speak up, providing internal message boards, town halls and other forums for them to voice their opinions.

But what happens when a worker expresses a wildly unpopular—or even offensive—viewpoint?

That is one of the questions Google must now grapple with after an employee wrote an internal memo positing that women’s biological attributes such as being prone to “higher anxiety,” not sexism, contribute to the company’s gender gap. The missive set off a firestorm within the search giant and the broader tech community.

While many tech companies provide workers with the digital forums to discuss topics including press coverage, the ways consumers use their products and critiques of management, the uproar at Google highlights the risks that come with open discussion of contentious issues.

Companies can prohibit some speech and behaviors that discriminate against or harass members of staff, and may terminate those who violate the employer’s values and mission, attorneys said.

“There’s no unfettered right for employees to say whatever they want without facing repercussions from their company,” said Daniel A. Schwartz, employment law partner at Shipman & Goodwin LLP. “The question for companies like Google is, are you going to discipline employees for speaking their minds, when you’ve created a platform that encourages it?”

The Google employee argued that company initiatives to increase diversity discriminate against some workers, and that a liberal bias among executives and many employees makes it difficult to discuss the issue at the company, according to a version of the memo reviewed by The Wall Street Journal and verified by Google employees.

The memo has gone viral since it was initially published internally late last week, then leaked to the press over the weekend. The incident is the latest to underscore the notion that the tech industry is unwelcoming to women and minorities.

Google Chief Executive Sundar Pichai tried to strike a balance in a message sent to employees Monday. “We strongly support the right of Googlers to express themselves, and much of what was in that memo is fair to debate regardless of whether a vast majority of Googlers disagree with it. However, portions of the memo violate our Code of Conduct and cross the line by advancing harmful gender stereotypes in our workplace,” Mr. Pichai wrote. Google hasn’t publicly named the memo’s author.

Software engineer James Damore, who wrote in an email that he was the author of the memo and had been fired for it, said he has complained to federal labor officials about executives’ efforts to silence him.

Workplace-harassment laws give employers latitude to police digital message boards in the same way they monitor the photos and messages workers hang in their physical workplaces, said Mr. Schwartz. Companies restrict the posting of violent and pornographic material for those reasons.

Experts said moderating digital discussions requires clear guidelines for how employees should participate and proper internal coordination to manage responses to messages that violate norms.

Victoria Plaut, a law professor and the director of the culture, diversity and intergroup relations lab at the University of California, Berkeley, suggested that companies can enhance their internal message boards with more-structured environments where difficult conversations can take place. That might include soliciting employees’ opinions through focus groups and surveys, she said.
Google could use this as a learning opportunity—both to reflect on how the climate is experienced by all employees and to pinpoint sources of resistance to its initiatives,” said Ms. Plaut.

Mr. Damore’s termination could create more complications for Google. Valerie Frederickson, CEO and managing partner at Frederickson Pribula Li, an executive search firm specializing in human resources, said firing an employee on such grounds could alienate others at the company who quietly agree with the memo’s author.

“Yes, maybe there are 10,000 who want him fired but maybe there are 30 or 40 people who feel he should be allowed to speak his mind,” said Ms. Frederickson.

Yonatan Zunger, an engineer who recently left Google, wrote in an email that if the memo’s author had been on his team he would have pushed for termination because of the hostile work environment the document had created.

“It’s very important to have a free, and respectful, discussion of ideas in a company. But there isn’t really a respectful way to say, ‘I think you, and people like you, are inherently less suited to do this job than people like me,’ because the idea itself is disrespectful,” said Mr. Zunger.

On August 17 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:

Xdaunt, I’ve been following the rise of the “alt-right” since 2014, well before you were ever aware of it. They are just the rebranding of the KKK, Nazis and other anti-democratic groups in the US. And to be honest, its been a real bummer to see how sold themselves as just another political view points to conservatives like yourself. I know that was their plan, but it is really troubling how effective it has been. There is no debate with these folks, including Bannon. They don’t respect our system of democracy.

On August 17 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:

That is 100% on point why we do not debate with fascist, racists or anti-Semites. You cannot debate people with no shame.

On August 17 2017 03:39 IgnE wrote:
he did just post vox day's definition, mohdoo . . .

On August 17 2017 03:32 Plansix wrote:

That is 100% on point why we do not debate with fascist, racists or anti-Semites. You cannot debate people with no shame.

On August 17 2017 03:45 Danglars wrote:


I've had the same experience. And same reaction. I find in-person to be loads better because there's less Kwark and Plansix "you're a racist" distractions, but there's still hurdles in people showing me why they think they're right versus justifying why its right to shut down people who think they're wrong.

Your post was like a breath of fresh air.

On August 17 2017 03:45 xDaunt wrote:

Yeah, but I don't know whether I fully agree with it as being definitive. It's certainly more moderate than some of the other more racially identitarian formulations that are out there.

On August 17 2017 02:57 ninazerg wrote:
Of all the groups of people I have ever debated in my life, far-left progressives have been the most resistant to having an actual discussion with me. Not even a 'debate'. Just a discussion. And this is a problem because people who hold these beliefs (I know I'm not being very specific here, but I don't want to get into that right now. That's another discussion for another time.) sit in influential positions in some cases. This failure to articulate and defend ideas with evidence and reason is a hallmark of intellectual laziness, and when some white supremacist posts anywhere on any website that has a public forum, I kind of expect the internet to do what the internet does and brutally assail them in written form, but I would also expect people who consider themselves to be 'intellectual' to engage them in a serious discussion. For example, if a Neo-Nazi says something like "Jews control all the banks" or something to that effect, my first thought would be to open a tab up and look up the CEOs of major banks to see if they're actually all Jewish or not. I don't even consider myself to be a very 'intellectual' person, but I consider myself smart enough not to immediately just go straight to personal insults in a discussion.

if the left wants to 'win' in the marketplace of ideas, shutting down dissent, relying on Antifa for physical intimidation, refusing to engage in debate, and calling political-moderates names for asking questions is ultimately going to be counterproductive to their platform.