You be surprised at how few young people, including coders, see a contradiction in stopping speech they don't like and being "for free speech." That whole First Amendment thing is "problematic" because their professors taught them so. They're for free speech... that they agree with.
Hm. I know there's been lots of news stories of people complaining, but have any actual decisions been made with respect to them? I haven't followed that closely.
I guess what I'm really thinking is if this moves the needle at all in terms of saving the company: my impression was that there are just too many services now and with better content.
It's for the sake of the shareholders that they're not giving in to PC nonsense. From what I read, the objections to content were not coming from shareholders but from ERGs (special interest groups of employees organized around identity politics... which is a bad idea in the first place).
What's the point of assembling a diverse workforce, if their voices are not heard.
And it's not about "PC Culture", it's about people talking down on marginalized groups. A trans person having a comedy special and making jokes about their community would be very different.
When special interest groups can get you cancelled, they are in a position of power - criticising them is punching up - this is exactly what one of those jokes refers to: that trans people/groups often have white privilege, or some kind of institutional support.
That said, suggesting there is a binary power structure is incorrect in the first place.
The employees are shareholders. Engineers get astound $10k of stock every year.
And protecting the company from those who would wring short term profits from it at the cost of long term trust and viability is a good thing. Always will be.
Employees are welcome to provide feedback.
The company is not required to comply to every demand, especially when its employees are actively trying to censor content.
Hate speech is a ridiculous term, especially when applied to comedy.
Yeah this is a grey area that everyone can never be happy.. Personally the Dave Chapell fiasco was just a series of jokes.. He's literally a comedian making jokes, good or bad are about taste.
I think there is a limit to PC, but there definitely is a line. Netflix as a provider can't make everyone happy. But as a company working environment they seem to be. I know many people who identify in different ways and have always only said positives about the culture.
Is it really fair to blame Netflix when you in particular don't like some content they host ? I'm not sure. But it's a minefield.
I'm really tired of the implied narrative around the Netflix-Chapelle-Trans debate being that transgender people are insisting that 'The Closer' be removed from the Netflix platform. That was never a request of their ERG. In fact, you can read the specifics of what they asked for here: https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/18/22733098/netflix-trans-e...
The overall theme of what they were asking for was around harm reduction and seeking equal time (and money) for trans-affirming content. Demanding that any art that offends you be eliminated isn't something that a wise person would broadly argue for, and that argument wasn't being made here.
The person talking loudest about cancelling Dave Chapelle... is Dave Chapelle.
They're not asking that for every film that includes trans-people, there should be one that does.
They're asking that if Netflix has to show content that actively makes fun of or discriminates against trans-people, that Netflix will at least balance it out with positive representation.
And their definition of content that discriminates against them is pretty ridiculous.
Marriage and social definitions aside (those are fair enough), the trans community has some incredibly anti-scientific perspectives pertaining to the biological fundamentals of a sexually reproducing species.
There are two (and only two) sexes, that's been the case for aeons.
What they're asking for is equivalent to "teaching the controversy"; they're no better in this regard than creationists.
I feel like this has been said many times, but I'll say it again: there's a difference between sex and gender. Sex refers to the genitals you're born with, so you're correct when you say there are only two sexes (ignoring intersex for the moment, which does occur but can be considered an edge case).
Gender, on the other hand, refers to the social construct of how we see the relationship between these sexes in society. Transgender people are those who identify as a gender that doesn't specifically match their sex. There's no re-writing of science here, just an acceptance that a significant chunk of the population (yes, ~1% of the population is significant) want to live as a different gender than the one they're assigned at birth.
It's easy to listen to everyone in good times. That has been the case with Netflix since they were the only streaming service available. Now that the competition has increased, it is best to focus on what the service is all about and that's entertainment for many different views. The world is not all about ERG. There are many views in the world. And it's important that it presents them as part of the service. There are limits but they can't all be based on the ERG mentality.
I don't see what's wrong with drawing a moral line.
And it's not that all content needs to be inclusive, it's just about not showing content that is actively harmful to marginalized groups. Seems like a low bar to clear.
22 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 58.5 ms ] threadI guess what I'm really thinking is if this moves the needle at all in terms of saving the company: my impression was that there are just too many services now and with better content.
And it's not about "PC Culture", it's about people talking down on marginalized groups. A trans person having a comedy special and making jokes about their community would be very different.
Why do people like Chappelle need to make fun of a group that is fighting for their rights and recognition across the world?
He's signalling that trans people should not be recognized as themselves, and their issues not taken seriously.
At this point it doesn't matter if people laugh at the end.
That said, suggesting there is a binary power structure is incorrect in the first place.
And protecting the company from those who would wring short term profits from it at the cost of long term trust and viability is a good thing. Always will be.
Employees are welcome to provide feedback. The company is not required to comply to every demand, especially when its employees are actively trying to censor content.
Hate speech is a ridiculous term, especially when applied to comedy.
I think there is a limit to PC, but there definitely is a line. Netflix as a provider can't make everyone happy. But as a company working environment they seem to be. I know many people who identify in different ways and have always only said positives about the culture.
Is it really fair to blame Netflix when you in particular don't like some content they host ? I'm not sure. But it's a minefield.
The overall theme of what they were asking for was around harm reduction and seeking equal time (and money) for trans-affirming content. Demanding that any art that offends you be eliminated isn't something that a wise person would broadly argue for, and that argument wasn't being made here.
The person talking loudest about cancelling Dave Chapelle... is Dave Chapelle.
In a for profit environment.
Perhaps they need to readjust their expectations?
They're asking that if Netflix has to show content that actively makes fun of or discriminates against trans-people, that Netflix will at least balance it out with positive representation.
Marriage and social definitions aside (those are fair enough), the trans community has some incredibly anti-scientific perspectives pertaining to the biological fundamentals of a sexually reproducing species.
There are two (and only two) sexes, that's been the case for aeons.
What they're asking for is equivalent to "teaching the controversy"; they're no better in this regard than creationists.
Gender, on the other hand, refers to the social construct of how we see the relationship between these sexes in society. Transgender people are those who identify as a gender that doesn't specifically match their sex. There's no re-writing of science here, just an acceptance that a significant chunk of the population (yes, ~1% of the population is significant) want to live as a different gender than the one they're assigned at birth.
I hope that cleared it up.
And it's not that all content needs to be inclusive, it's just about not showing content that is actively harmful to marginalized groups. Seems like a low bar to clear.