I want to believe that HN isn’t “so Reddit” as to not see the issue here and can realize that this type of censorship / thought-concealment can turn around on them very quickly... but again, downvotes...
I think the downvotes were because "society punishing people for their views" doesn't really apply to a PR move made by a non-governmental corporation.
Also, sometimes "punishment" (Luckey got $100M, so hard to call this a punishment) is positive.
It's how some societies keep dangerous views, like racism or the support of slavery, from turning into harmful actions.
This comment is bad in many ways. FB is a people company and seeks to employ those who support its mission and beliefs.
Ex. If a person is publicly known to believe in eugenics and they are in a position where the company could be adversely affected by the continued employment of that person then it is more than in the interest to remove association with said person.
I'd be surprised if you've never had to stop associating with people who beliefs you did not share at all.
> I'd be surprised if you've
> never had to stop associating
> with people who beliefs you
> did not share at all.
That really isn't how fully functional adults act. You should be perfectly fine knowing someone who disagrees with you. In fact, that exposes you to variety of opinions (which is good good your critical thinking abilities). Why else talk to anyone at all, if you've just surrounded yourself with only yes men, who just agree with you on everything?
You can disagree with someone and still be friends, enjoy a conversation, or have other things in common. Even about politics. Even about everything.
This is exactly the kind of comment I was trying to prevent with the "at all" and your image being adversely affected by association with the other. Please look at the comment in the whole context and not pick the parts that make it look unreasonable.
There are always things that people disagree on, but they are not going to adversely affect you because of their belief. I can be an omnivore and another can choose to be vegan, but I would not disassociate only on that.
I will be friends with anyone interesting. Especially if that's someone whose opinions are the opposite of mine. That would be fascinating. Let anyone judge me for that as they will.
Find something to stand for, and don't be afraid to be juged for it.
What is it you fear? Someone thinking that because you're friends with a Trump voter, you're a monster somehow?
Let it be publicly known that I'm friends with Trump voters, Hillary voters, Gary Johnson voters, and even someone who once voted for Nader.
If I were a public figure who wanted absolutely zero association with something, I'd take steps to make sure I were not associated and could not be reasonably associated with said thing. FB employs a ton of people with widespread beliefs. Palmer happened to be a public figure whose associations with FB could cause discord if not already.
Do you disagree with the statement or the context? I am sure you dont approve of countries that ban homosexuality and yet they produce arguments for their case.
Freedom of association for employers and co-workers is not punishment.
I should absolutely be able to be free to not associate with or choose not to work with racists or people who get ugly tattoos or people who listen to Linkin Park or any other adult decision they undertake freely. Being able to decide the types of people I want to be around is my and everyone else’s right.
Discrimination based on built-in traits is bad (and stupid), such as skin color or sex or national origin, but voluntary choices undertaken by an adult (e.g. a decision to write the service in PHP, or to join the KKK, or to take up arms against strangers for pay, or to worship the god of Abraham) can and should be actively used to separate people into different groups that one prefers or avoids.
Nolo seems to think that's the case, they list "political activities or affiliations" as a protected class:
"In addition, California state law also prohibits discrimination based on:
...
marital status,
sexual orientation,
gender identity and gender expression,
AIDS/HIV,
medical condition,
political activities or affiliations,
military or veteran status, and
status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking.
19 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 49.0 ms ] threadI want to believe that HN isn’t “so Reddit” as to not see the issue here and can realize that this type of censorship / thought-concealment can turn around on them very quickly... but again, downvotes...
Also, sometimes "punishment" (Luckey got $100M, so hard to call this a punishment) is positive.
It's how some societies keep dangerous views, like racism or the support of slavery, from turning into harmful actions.
Ex. If a person is publicly known to believe in eugenics and they are in a position where the company could be adversely affected by the continued employment of that person then it is more than in the interest to remove association with said person.
I'd be surprised if you've never had to stop associating with people who beliefs you did not share at all.
You can disagree with someone and still be friends, enjoy a conversation, or have other things in common. Even about politics. Even about everything.
There are always things that people disagree on, but they are not going to adversely affect you because of their belief. I can be an omnivore and another can choose to be vegan, but I would not disassociate only on that.
Find something to stand for, and don't be afraid to be juged for it.
What is it you fear? Someone thinking that because you're friends with a Trump voter, you're a monster somehow?
Let it be publicly known that I'm friends with Trump voters, Hillary voters, Gary Johnson voters, and even someone who once voted for Nader.
I'm ready to be judged.
I would pose the question of whether one should ever be punished for their views to you.
I should absolutely be able to be free to not associate with or choose not to work with racists or people who get ugly tattoos or people who listen to Linkin Park or any other adult decision they undertake freely. Being able to decide the types of people I want to be around is my and everyone else’s right.
Discrimination based on built-in traits is bad (and stupid), such as skin color or sex or national origin, but voluntary choices undertaken by an adult (e.g. a decision to write the service in PHP, or to join the KKK, or to take up arms against strangers for pay, or to worship the god of Abraham) can and should be actively used to separate people into different groups that one prefers or avoids.
"In addition, California state law also prohibits discrimination based on: ... marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity and gender expression, AIDS/HIV, medical condition, political activities or affiliations, military or veteran status, and status as a victim of domestic violence, assault, or stalking.
[1] https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...