I surely hope so. I think people should be allowed to discuss things like this in an open and civil manner, no matter how wrong or flawed their arguments are. As long as they are not openly hurting or disrespecting their coworkers, I don't see the issue with a document like this exploring ideas. When we promote "challenging ideas" and discussion, it applies to everyone, not only those we agree with.
That you don't see the harm doesn't mean there's harm. If you would care to do a little work, you can find plenty of people explaining what the particular harm here is.
You might also try studying history; you can find many examples of people civilly discussing absolutely horrific ideas that resulted in enormous harm to people. That civil discussion enabled the harm.
I am scared of your response, do yo mean we cannot discuss things because of the consequences? even if we try to improve and fix things with the discussion?
If you would like to civilly promote your notion that black people aren't really human and are only fit to be slaves, then no, we can't do that. If you bring it up I will tell you are an asshole, and if you persist, I will shun you and tell everybody else to shun you.
You are free to say terrible things. I am free to exercise freedom of speech and freedom of association in response. Your freedom of speech is not freedom from consequences.
If you are scared of that, then maybe take some time to think about the opinions you're so excited to share. Maybe they're harmful to others.
So... In this article we have a person talking about the positive discrimination in a company and how it can harm the company. This topic can harm some people even when the author doesn't want to. You can think he is saying terrible things (like some people thinks indeed), so you are not open to discuss with him about the topic?
> then maybe take some time to think about the opinions you're so excited to share
I am not going to shut up if I think I am right and it is the best for everybody even if my opinion hurts some people. I shouldn't do it indeed.
> so you are not open to discuss with him about the topic?
Am I personally interested in discussing this guy's bad ideas with him? No, I have better things to do than try to get him to examine the prejudices that he's so energetically hiding under a mountain of justification. History suggests that most bigots will literally die before they'll change their opinion. And from what I've seen, those who do change don't do it because of reasoned discussion; they instead have an emotional epiphany of the impact of bigotry.
> I am not going to shut up if I think I am right and it is the best for everybody even if my opinion hurts some people. I shouldn't do it indeed.
How brave! If you look at the US's historical record, you can find a great number of (white) people arguing that the institution of slavery is the best for everybody even if it hurts some people. Try the Conerstone Speech, for example, or the Texas Declaration of Secession.
Of course, you aren't that brave. Like most pro-discrimination people you comment from the shadows.
In case its not irony, the harm never originated from the discussions- the "discussions" the had on eugenics and various other horrid things, where the same thing we have today. People wrapped in echo-chamber bubbles, glueing "evidence" to the wall of these echo-chambers.
Its actually easy to identify such discussions. They are not aimed at research for a remedy. As in a real, root cause remedy. They want to wrap it in a social construct, or declare it a fact, so it can be put on a podest.
These discussions end not in further research, but in "we have the facts/rules figured out, now lets make history" atrocities.
Such pseudo discussions happen on the left and on the right side. You know that you are in one, if you cant press a certain point without hostility.
"So what is the root cause?"(Repeat in left discussion)
"What can be done to fix that?" (Repeat in right discussion)
If you have evidence that harm never once originated from people saying words, I'd love to see it. Otherwise, I think you're making an assertion that you'd like to be true.
Discussions have effects. That's why we have them.
Humans aren't computers. Words and actions are not always distinct. Indeed, they mostly aren't distinct. If words didn't have an effect on the world, we wouldn't have evolved language.
Sorry, i violently reject your opinion. I found it to be the source of some of the utmost terror in totalitatiran regimes, where "Words" are equal to "Traitorous actions" and thus punnished.
And i found that behind this kind of thought, usually a anti-democratic yearning for a opion dictatorship lurks.
Still, violently rejecting does not include preventing you from uttering it.
Some speech is action. That's why we have crimes like incitement to riot, fraud, harrassment, criminal threat, and conspiracy to commit murder.
If somebody has an, honest reasonably considered question that they would like to raise after having done at least a modest amount of work to answer themselves, sure, let's talk about it.
But most speech isn't like that. It's persuasion, advocacy, negoiation, action. Indeed, the Google manifestbro was quite clearly advocacy. It wasn't a question. It was a ten-page screed meant to convince. In specific, to convince people to act differently. Those actions will have real-world consequences. It is entirely unshocking that people who would be harmed by those consequences will vigorously object.
We are talking about one person saying something and then other people exercising their freedom of speech and freedom of association in response. The guy certainly has the right to claim that women are biologically inferior. But his coworkers have the right to tell him that a) he's wrong, and b) he's an asshole. And Google has the right to say, "Thanks for your service; see you later."
That's freedom. If you don't like it, well, you have the right to say so.
Inciting violence and making criminal threats would not be "civil discussion" then, which is what we're talking about... so I'm not sure what point you're making.
Free speech means most speech is protected, however there are specific instances of unprotected speech, such as inciting lawlessness or libel/slander. This speech can and is prosecuted, but it is still not action.
Keep asserting that buddy. But I'm telling you now, each essay I write is intended to change something in the world. If I didn't intend it as an action, I wouldn't bother writing it.
So, are you saying the manifesto writer should be censored, shunned, fired? Should Gizmodo and Google censor all such similar writings and videos from internal and external applications?
I am saying that manigandham's total separation between speech and action is incorrect.
I think Gizmodo and Google and this guy are all welcome to keep publishing whatever they want to. I think everybody else should also feel free to exercise their freedom of speech and freedom of association in response to that speech and publication.
