21 ms·

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

slg 8y ago
I agree. From the article: >This month, the social network barred the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, a move that critics seized on as further evidence that the company harbors an anti-conservative bias. Banning someone like Alex Jones is not an anti-conservative bias. It is an anti-asshole bias. No one is going to ban you for discussing tax policy.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  There’s a massive difference between calculated misinformation with incitement to violence and having differing views.
  - slg 8y ago
    Sure, but I'm not the one who lumped those two together. That quote in the article says the conservative critics are the ones jumping to use Jones' ban as evidence of anti-conservative bias. The "critics" are self-identifying as Jones' allies. That is a red flag in my book since many of Jones' views don't deserve respect.
    - whatshisface 8y ago
      Alex Jones is not respected by most conservatives (even the hypothetical person who agreed with every single one of his views would still think that his delivery was a bit hammy). If conservatives are rallying around him, it's based on the idea that as soon as the least defensible person is gone, the least defensible person becomes whoever used to be the second least defensible, and so on, and so on... It's almost the mirror image of the NRA strategy of saying, "don't ban any guns," because if you ban only the worst guns then a new set of guns becomes the worst guns, until you've banned every gun.
      - hpcjoe 8y ago
        There is a poem by Niemoller that seems relevant[1]. The point of the poem is that if you don't speak up against actions taken against groups, you may not have support when action is taken against you. What is going on appears to be people standing up and saying "enough". Which is good. If they are hauled away and fired, well, then not so good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
        52-6F-62 8y ago
        This is not the first time I've seen somebody attempt to align this quote with groups that sympathize with other neo-nazi sympathizers (I mean, knowingly or not). If this group is allying themselves with Alex Jones, then I would hesitate attributing this quote to their cause. This quote was explicitly about the nazis. [Utilizing it this way] It seems to do Niemöller a disservice, IMO. I sympathize with people are shut out of civil conversation just for holding views on the other side of the spectrum— that shouldn't happen. Allying with Jones was either a crucial mistake for optics here, or outs the real beliefs inherent—that they're not just wanting to discuss conservative policy. Banning Alex Jones from FB being a core piece of evidence that somehow FB is anti-conservative doesn't sound to me like concern over civil conversation. Jones was banned for inciting violence against innocent parties amongst other things.
        hpcjoe 8y ago
        This is not the first time I've seen comments construed to mean something completely opposite from what was intended. This seems to be the argumentation tactic of this time. The poem was specifically about purging targets not aligned with the thought processes of those in power. When you leverage your power to come for the next group, and take them out of play with ostracization, ridicule, etc., or in the case of the actual nazis, murder and genocide, then you have abused your power and made other groups outside your group afraid. This is the uncomfortable truth of the poem. I personally cannot stand AJ and his kooks. But I am against deplatforming, as kooks tend to self-identify, and I want to know exactly where they are and what they are doing at all times.
    - justinzollars 8y ago
      I think the Democratic Socialists of San Francisco deserve no respect; and their policy advocacy will only lead to higher rents, more homelessness and more despair. But I'm not going to take their ability to use the internet away. In High school I really hated NetNanny - I'm not sure why so many people are so determined to become NetNanny.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
      - camel_Snake 8y ago
        No one took away Alex Jones' ability to use the internet. They took away his ability to use their platform to spread his message after violating their TOS. He is free to start his own Facebook, Twitter, etc.
        justinzollars 8y ago
        I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.
        camel_Snake 8y ago
        > Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. I agree! > The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible. I also agree! However, I personally believe that if corporate censorship has a meaningful impact on the freedom of speech in a society then the fundamental problem is the amount of influence said corporation has on that society. The issue is the size and influence of the private entity - society-altering censorship is just a more visible manifestation of the root problem.
  - nyolfen 8y ago
    > incitement to violence good point, do you feel this way about people who say 'punch a nazi'?
    - jachee 8y ago
      Your Nazi sympathies are showing.
    - __d 8y ago
      I can't speak for the OP, but I think "punch a Nazi" is totally unacceptable. A related example: Antifa. When a group expressing an extreme ideology begins to use violence against those who oppose it, is it acceptable to use violence in retaliation? Historically, the answer is "after a while, yes". But it's a slippery slope towards becoming that which you oppose.
    - stochastic_monk 8y ago
      Yes. I don’t support the use of violence, and those who commit violent crimes should be prosecuted. That being said, there is a very real difference in scale between a punch and assault with a lethal firearm.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- int_19h 8y ago
  > Banning someone like Alex Jones is not an anti-conservative bias. It is an anti-asshole bias. No one is going to ban you for discussing tax policy. That depends on whether assholes holding other political beliefs get banned at the same rate, or not.
randyrand 8y ago
I agree. My issue is a lot of views are subjective and based on unknowable gut feelings. For example, is economic inequality primarily natural or due to injustices? these things don’t have knowable answers - with current technology.
mbrumlow 8y ago
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 8y ago
  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.
  - lainga 8y ago
    This is a very strange opinion to take. What do you think parliaments do and/or did, declare their opinions and then bring out the swords and pistols?* * excluding that one time with Charles Sumner.
  - taneq 8y ago
    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 8y ago
      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.
badrabbit 8y ago
Who decides what should be tolerated? Facebook? How is an employees personal business a company's business?
- compostable 8y ago
  Yes, because they are making the world a better place. You can't believe in gun rights if you are making the world a better place, dontcha know.
haha99 8y ago
Your gut reaction to "not left-leaning views" was "not all views deserve respect", implying they are awful, unconceivable ideas that they want to express. Not a personal attack because, right now, this is the only non-greyed message in this thread, which means most people agree with you. That's bad.
- stochastic_monk 8y ago
  I was thinking that he meant that the views held by those who have decided they’re being persecuted were views that did not deserve respect.
  - haha99 8y ago
    It depends on who you ask. Saying something in public or doing something against some of the hot, left-leaning ideas of this time (feminism, or homosexualism) could very well get you fired. I'm sure you can think of examples... Problem is that some people want to lump, for example, "abortion is murder" and "burn all niggers" together so nobody can ever make the former point.
    - cycrutchfield 8y ago
      >hot, left-leaning ideas of this time >equal rights for women >equal rights for people regardless of their sexuality What is "this time"? The 1800s?
      - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
        Western feminism is no longer a movement that does any appreciable work towards equal rights for women. They, uhh, kind of already have that in the developed world.
        __d 8y ago
        The fact that "western feminism" doesn't appear to believe that women have achieved equal rights seems to me like maybe there's some more discussion to be had and changes to be made?
peterhadlaw 8y ago
Care to quote any specifics? I always... appreciate... how it's hearsay as opposed to just citing first party documents / quotes / material and letting people decide for themselves.
gedy 8y ago
Sounds a lot like: "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...
manfredo 8y ago
The following views were listed on the memo: * Support of President Trump (e.g. Thiel's 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?
- brainkim 8y ago
  The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and absent mitigating circumstances I’d consider firing people who held them. Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel given everything that’s been going on these days.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    > Criticizing of Islam's human rights record is deeply problematic. I’d consider firing people who do it. On pain of Poe’s law, are you being sarcastic?
  - vimy 8y ago
    You equal criticising religion to white supremacy? That's really troubling.
    - fake-name 8y ago
      Specifically singling out islam is very, very strongly correlated with it, so yes.
      - mmirate 8y ago
        Actually, specifically singling out Islam is only logical because it is the largest group of people with whom these issues are associated.
    - webkike 8y ago
      Critcism of Islam is almost always qualified with "and that's why we shouldn't let them into our country"
atlantic 8y ago
Interesting point of view. Presumably, the views you agree with deserve respect, the others not so much. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.
narrator 8y ago
I do not respect your view that not all views deserve respect.
- webkike 8y ago
  Then it seems like you both agree!
- hpcjoe 8y ago
  Oh dear ... we seem to have found an accidental logical inconsistency in the universe. Prepare for reboot in 3 .. 2 .. More seriously, I can and do disagree strenuously with friends, family, coworkers over many things. I value opposing viewpoints, as it helps me think through my own views. Without those opposing viewpoints, we get echo chambers. These echo chambers decide to not respect viewpoints not in agreement with their own. It is inevitable that Godwin's law is somehow invoked these days, almost by reflex. In the US, we have the right to speak freely without interference from the government with very specific limited exceptions. So we cannot make the most odious speech illegal. We can protest such speech, but we need to do this within the bounds of the law. Regardless of my views, I find myself censoring what I say aloud, or write in posts like this. As the narratives do shift, and one day, I may find my views which were one day mainstream, are now deep into fringe territory. This is not good. Anyone thinking that shutting someone down hard by means other than a better argument, needs to be prepared for when their views are on the outside. Put another way, this is a very slippery slope. We really don't want to continue down this path. I applaud the FB group, hopefully they can make a difference.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
ThrustVectoring 8y ago
"Free speech" as a general principle isn't about respect. It's a practical cease-fire: we agree to not try to censor your views even while it's within our power, and you agree to not try to censor our views even while it's within your power. If Facebook has the right to set up their workplace such that mainstream right-of-center views are excluded, then other companies have the right to set up their workplaces such that mainstream left-of-center views get excluded, too. IMO, it's far better to cut as much of the political BS as possible so that the greatest number of folks can get along and work together - this is why a lot of workplaces have a professional norm against talking politics in general.
nsxwolf 8y ago
That’s an interesting reaction. Are there also some left leaning views that don’t deserve respect?
- exabrial 8y ago
  For starters: * anti-vaccination * anti-gmo I have a few others, but it saddens me to admit I don't have enough faith that HN is free speech forum.
  - tjr225 8y ago
    Wha are you afraid of? Losing internet points? Give me a break.
    - gergles 8y ago
      No, he's probably afraid of someone playing Internet Detective against him for his audacious behavior of going against the currently-approved orthodoxy... and then doxxing him and his employer and starting a manufactured outrage campaign on Twitter until he gets fired.
    - exabrial 8y ago
      You literally just proved my point with your response.
      - tjr225 8y ago
        I'm not following you? Is the point of your post that liberals can hold bad views(which I agree with) or is your point that you might be criticized? If it's the latter then I think that in fact you have proved my point - that holding back your opinions here is stupid. I guess it could be some mix of the two, but wouldn't that make the other point just some tool for you to express that HN is left leaning? What exactly is wrong with that (other than, you know, someone might disagree with you)? And if you think HN is left leaning...I think that's insane. Just look at the comments here, read about you the blind libertarianism in almost any other comment section here. Are you kidding!? In any case, I can't see how I "literally proved your point" unless the point of your post was something other than what it is overtly- and if that was your point then I still think being afraid of being criticized here is stupid.
earenndil 8y ago
I disagree. Not all actions deserve respect. If facebook has some official views, and then an employee goes and publicly states 'I, an employee of facebook, think X', where X is counter to those official views, then they should absolutely be disciplined and/or fired. However, internally, there is no reason not to let people express whatever ideas they choose.
sdinsn 8y ago
There is a difference between "respect" and "tolerance". You don't have to 'respect' anyone's speech, but if we live in a country with Freedom of Speech, then you for sure have to tolerate things you don't agree with. Even if your company decides to ban certain speech, you can't avoid it forever...

slg 8y ago

I agree. From the article: >This month, the social network barred the far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, a move that critics seized on as further evidence that the company harbors an anti-conservative bias. Banning someone like Alex Jones is not an anti-conservative bias. It is an anti-asshole bias. No one is going to ban you for discussing tax policy.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
There’s a massive difference between calculated misinformation with incitement to violence and having differing views.
- slg 8y ago
  Sure, but I'm not the one who lumped those two together. That quote in the article says the conservative critics are the ones jumping to use Jones' ban as evidence of anti-conservative bias. The "critics" are self-identifying as Jones' allies. That is a red flag in my book since many of Jones' views don't deserve respect.
  - whatshisface 8y ago
    Alex Jones is not respected by most conservatives (even the hypothetical person who agreed with every single one of his views would still think that his delivery was a bit hammy). If conservatives are rallying around him, it's based on the idea that as soon as the least defensible person is gone, the least defensible person becomes whoever used to be the second least defensible, and so on, and so on... It's almost the mirror image of the NRA strategy of saying, "don't ban any guns," because if you ban only the worst guns then a new set of guns becomes the worst guns, until you've banned every gun.
    - hpcjoe 8y ago
      There is a poem by Niemoller that seems relevant[1]. The point of the poem is that if you don't speak up against actions taken against groups, you may not have support when action is taken against you. What is going on appears to be people standing up and saying "enough". Which is good. If they are hauled away and fired, well, then not so good. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came_...
      - 52-6F-62 8y ago
        This is not the first time I've seen somebody attempt to align this quote with groups that sympathize with other neo-nazi sympathizers (I mean, knowingly or not). If this group is allying themselves with Alex Jones, then I would hesitate attributing this quote to their cause. This quote was explicitly about the nazis. [Utilizing it this way] It seems to do Niemöller a disservice, IMO. I sympathize with people are shut out of civil conversation just for holding views on the other side of the spectrum— that shouldn't happen. Allying with Jones was either a crucial mistake for optics here, or outs the real beliefs inherent—that they're not just wanting to discuss conservative policy. Banning Alex Jones from FB being a core piece of evidence that somehow FB is anti-conservative doesn't sound to me like concern over civil conversation. Jones was banned for inciting violence against innocent parties amongst other things.
        hpcjoe 8y ago
        This is not the first time I've seen comments construed to mean something completely opposite from what was intended. This seems to be the argumentation tactic of this time. The poem was specifically about purging targets not aligned with the thought processes of those in power. When you leverage your power to come for the next group, and take them out of play with ostracization, ridicule, etc., or in the case of the actual nazis, murder and genocide, then you have abused your power and made other groups outside your group afraid. This is the uncomfortable truth of the poem. I personally cannot stand AJ and his kooks. But I am against deplatforming, as kooks tend to self-identify, and I want to know exactly where they are and what they are doing at all times.
  - justinzollars 8y ago
    I think the Democratic Socialists of San Francisco deserve no respect; and their policy advocacy will only lead to higher rents, more homelessness and more despair. But I'm not going to take their ability to use the internet away. In High school I really hated NetNanny - I'm not sure why so many people are so determined to become NetNanny.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
    - camel_Snake 8y ago
      No one took away Alex Jones' ability to use the internet. They took away his ability to use their platform to spread his message after violating their TOS. He is free to start his own Facebook, Twitter, etc.
      - justinzollars 8y ago
        I am a Democrat who has been elected in the past, I agree with the conservative argument that: Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. While Alex Jones is a nut case (And shouldn't be defended), other less publicized incidents of censorship by Social Media companies has occurred (related to picking winners between Israel and Palestine) The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible.
        camel_Snake 8y ago
        > Corporate censorship dampens the spirit of free speech. I agree! > The spirit of free speech is defending the least defensible. I also agree! However, I personally believe that if corporate censorship has a meaningful impact on the freedom of speech in a society then the fundamental problem is the amount of influence said corporation has on that society. The issue is the size and influence of the private entity - society-altering censorship is just a more visible manifestation of the root problem.
- nyolfen 8y ago
  > incitement to violence good point, do you feel this way about people who say 'punch a nazi'?
  - jachee 8y ago
    Your Nazi sympathies are showing.
  - __d 8y ago
    I can't speak for the OP, but I think "punch a Nazi" is totally unacceptable. A related example: Antifa. When a group expressing an extreme ideology begins to use violence against those who oppose it, is it acceptable to use violence in retaliation? Historically, the answer is "after a while, yes". But it's a slippery slope towards becoming that which you oppose.
  - stochastic_monk 8y ago
    Yes. I don’t support the use of violence, and those who commit violent crimes should be prosecuted. That being said, there is a very real difference in scale between a punch and assault with a lethal firearm.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
int_19h 8y ago
> Banning someone like Alex Jones is not an anti-conservative bias. It is an anti-asshole bias. No one is going to ban you for discussing tax policy. That depends on whether assholes holding other political beliefs get banned at the same rate, or not.

randyrand 8y ago

I agree. My issue is a lot of views are subjective and based on unknowable gut feelings. For example, is economic inequality primarily natural or due to injustices? these things don’t have knowable answers - with current technology.

mbrumlow 8y ago

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 8y ago
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.
- lainga 8y ago
  This is a very strange opinion to take. What do you think parliaments do and/or did, declare their opinions and then bring out the swords and pistols?* * excluding that one time with Charles Sumner.
- taneq 8y ago
  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 8y ago
    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.

badrabbit 8y ago

Who decides what should be tolerated? Facebook? How is an employees personal business a company's business?

compostable 8y ago
Yes, because they are making the world a better place. You can't believe in gun rights if you are making the world a better place, dontcha know.

haha99 8y ago

Your gut reaction to "not left-leaning views" was "not all views deserve respect", implying they are awful, unconceivable ideas that they want to express. Not a personal attack because, right now, this is the only non-greyed message in this thread, which means most people agree with you. That's bad.

stochastic_monk 8y ago
I was thinking that he meant that the views held by those who have decided they’re being persecuted were views that did not deserve respect.
- haha99 8y ago
  It depends on who you ask. Saying something in public or doing something against some of the hot, left-leaning ideas of this time (feminism, or homosexualism) could very well get you fired. I'm sure you can think of examples... Problem is that some people want to lump, for example, "abortion is murder" and "burn all niggers" together so nobody can ever make the former point.
  - cycrutchfield 8y ago
    >hot, left-leaning ideas of this time >equal rights for women >equal rights for people regardless of their sexuality What is "this time"? The 1800s?
    - ThrustVectoring 8y ago
      Western feminism is no longer a movement that does any appreciable work towards equal rights for women. They, uhh, kind of already have that in the developed world.
      - __d 8y ago
        The fact that "western feminism" doesn't appear to believe that women have achieved equal rights seems to me like maybe there's some more discussion to be had and changes to be made?

peterhadlaw 8y ago

Care to quote any specifics? I always... appreciate... how it's hearsay as opposed to just citing first party documents / quotes / material and letting people decide for themselves.

gedy 8y ago

Sounds a lot like: "I can tolerate anything except the outgroup" https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anythin...

manfredo 8y ago

The following views were listed on the memo: * Support of President Trump (e.g. Thiel's 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?

brainkim 8y ago
The first three are deeply problematic and rooted in deep-seated white supremacist beliefs and absent mitigating circumstances I’d consider firing people who held them. Sorry, that’s just how I have to feel given everything that’s been going on these days.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  > Criticizing of Islam's human rights record is deeply problematic. I’d consider firing people who do it. On pain of Poe’s law, are you being sarcastic?
- vimy 8y ago
  You equal criticising religion to white supremacy? That's really troubling.
  - fake-name 8y ago
    Specifically singling out islam is very, very strongly correlated with it, so yes.
    - mmirate 8y ago
      Actually, specifically singling out Islam is only logical because it is the largest group of people with whom these issues are associated.
  - webkike 8y ago
    Critcism of Islam is almost always qualified with "and that's why we shouldn't let them into our country"

atlantic 8y ago

Interesting point of view. Presumably, the views you agree with deserve respect, the others not so much. As the saying goes, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

narrator 8y ago

I do not respect your view that not all views deserve respect.

webkike 8y ago
Then it seems like you both agree!
hpcjoe 8y ago
Oh dear ... we seem to have found an accidental logical inconsistency in the universe. Prepare for reboot in 3 .. 2 .. More seriously, I can and do disagree strenuously with friends, family, coworkers over many things. I value opposing viewpoints, as it helps me think through my own views. Without those opposing viewpoints, we get echo chambers. These echo chambers decide to not respect viewpoints not in agreement with their own. It is inevitable that Godwin's law is somehow invoked these days, almost by reflex. In the US, we have the right to speak freely without interference from the government with very specific limited exceptions. So we cannot make the most odious speech illegal. We can protest such speech, but we need to do this within the bounds of the law. Regardless of my views, I find myself censoring what I say aloud, or write in posts like this. As the narratives do shift, and one day, I may find my views which were one day mainstream, are now deep into fringe territory. This is not good. Anyone thinking that shutting someone down hard by means other than a better argument, needs to be prepared for when their views are on the outside. Put another way, this is a very slippery slope. We really don't want to continue down this path. I applaud the FB group, hopefully they can make a difference.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

ThrustVectoring 8y ago

"Free speech" as a general principle isn't about respect. It's a practical cease-fire: we agree to not try to censor your views even while it's within our power, and you agree to not try to censor our views even while it's within your power. If Facebook has the right to set up their workplace such that mainstream right-of-center views are excluded, then other companies have the right to set up their workplaces such that mainstream left-of-center views get excluded, too. IMO, it's far better to cut as much of the political BS as possible so that the greatest number of folks can get along and work together - this is why a lot of workplaces have a professional norm against talking politics in general.

nsxwolf 8y ago

That’s an interesting reaction. Are there also some left leaning views that don’t deserve respect?

exabrial 8y ago
For starters: * anti-vaccination * anti-gmo I have a few others, but it saddens me to admit I don't have enough faith that HN is free speech forum.
- tjr225 8y ago
  Wha are you afraid of? Losing internet points? Give me a break.
  - gergles 8y ago
    No, he's probably afraid of someone playing Internet Detective against him for his audacious behavior of going against the currently-approved orthodoxy... and then doxxing him and his employer and starting a manufactured outrage campaign on Twitter until he gets fired.
  - exabrial 8y ago
    You literally just proved my point with your response.
    - tjr225 8y ago
      I'm not following you? Is the point of your post that liberals can hold bad views(which I agree with) or is your point that you might be criticized? If it's the latter then I think that in fact you have proved my point - that holding back your opinions here is stupid. I guess it could be some mix of the two, but wouldn't that make the other point just some tool for you to express that HN is left leaning? What exactly is wrong with that (other than, you know, someone might disagree with you)? And if you think HN is left leaning...I think that's insane. Just look at the comments here, read about you the blind libertarianism in almost any other comment section here. Are you kidding!? In any case, I can't see how I "literally proved your point" unless the point of your post was something other than what it is overtly- and if that was your point then I still think being afraid of being criticized here is stupid.

earenndil 8y ago

I disagree. Not all actions deserve respect. If facebook has some official views, and then an employee goes and publicly states 'I, an employee of facebook, think X', where X is counter to those official views, then they should absolutely be disciplined and/or fired. However, internally, there is no reason not to let people express whatever ideas they choose.

sdinsn 8y ago

There is a difference between "respect" and "tolerance". You don't have to 'respect' anyone's speech, but if we live in a country with Freedom of Speech, then you for sure have to tolerate things you don't agree with. Even if your company decides to ban certain speech, you can't avoid it forever...