I mean you can say “men are trash”, “white people are trash” and so on, but at the same time you are not allowed to say anything against jewish people or other people? Isn’t it kinda hypocritical? Maybe we should not allow toxic behavior at all and have a civil discourse about someone is feeling towards some group of people to allow him to change his mind? Personal attacks and hatred will not do any good this will only prove to that person that he is right.
On one hand, there should ideally be no discrimination. So, hate speech directed even at white males should be disallowed.
On the other hand, society resolved through politics (such as Affirmative Action) that the compound interest and lasting synergistic effects of historical discrimination should be compensated for somewhat. The only way to do that is through more discrimination (i.e. relatively penalizing the least historically discriminated-against people).
I suspect this selective enforcement of the rules is one kind of such relative penalization.
What I don't understand is why do private companies take it upon themselves to do this. Is it genuine stakeholder concern (in conflict with profits)? ESG criteria giving them access to cheaper funding or tax breaks? Plain marketing? Virtue signalling?
>The only way to do that is through more discrimination (i.e. relatively penalizing the least historically discriminated-against people).
Which is done by creating opportunities for historically discriminated groups, not blindly handicapping white people for being white. I'm not white, but it's really worrying to me that that's allowed. Today it's them, tomorrow it's me, then it's you.
Usually there is no deeper reason than the fact that those private companies are staffed at the administrative and policy level by college-educated yuppies living in San Francisco and New York City, and that demographic has become increasingly ideological in the last few years and bought into the idea that progressive toxicity is either a socially good form of tough love/bullying/peer pressure or at least that restricting it disproportionately damages vulnerable groups, etc while what is labeled regressive toxicity is assumed to be heinous, destroying society, and deserving of quick permanent bans.
Companies are not perfectly rational calculators that always know best how to make money. They are made up of people, and people are flawed. People can be deluded into thinking that their bias toward pet issues is profit-neutral or even profit-positive. It happens in the non-politicized corporate sphere all the time - boondoggles is the term.
People are lazy they think that some sort of compensation will resolve all their issues but it’s not.
Everyone knows that these companies control people because they are constantly engaged on their platforms they can push anything they want. Companies will support any dominating regime for their own good it doesn’t matter if it’s democrats or republicans, fascists or communists, etc.
> I mean you can say “men are trash”, “white people are trash”
Are you sure? It's been a few years since I purged all social media from my life, but three years ago, it was going around and seemingly well-documented with screenshots that saying "men are trash" would get your post auto-deleted and your account sanctioned on Facebook.
This seems like another of those things where extremists on all sides believe they're being uniquely persecuted and some other side of the spectrum is given free reign, when more likely than not most mainstream platforms are pretty centrist.
I believe that's because Facebook gave itself some actual rules and then enforced them, regardless of who said it and who was the subject of the post, they treated all groups the same. Twitter or Reddit do not.
no, when you are banned, you pretty much cant get your account back. When it is locked, there are steps you can undertake to get access restored (like deleting the offending content).
Moderation[0] is not censorship. It just means having a productive conversation and debate without name-calling, slurs, and other malfeasance. "Trash" is not a harmful word, but inciting violence against an ethnic group definitely is harmful. There's also historical baggage attached to ethnic groups such as the Jews who were persecuted in an actual war and genocide. "Men" is too generic.
I don’t think that “autistic spectrum” only applies for CS it happens for any field. We just need to let women do what they are good at and men what they are good at without any blame or shaming. Because there are masculine men working as manicurists or like in beauty and there are women who are working in construction. And in terms of predominately men or women industries it’s not that we cannot switch or cannot figure it out it’s just differences in our interests and biology. We just have to embrace it like they did it in Sweden (as I remember)
> We just need to let women do what they are good at and men what they are good at without any blame or shaming
This would be great, but the question remains what to do if the jobs men prefer are being paid more than jobs women prefer. Is sexism why that's the case, or is there some other driving factor why society is valuing male preferred jobs higher?
Another factor is that men have an incentive to seek higher paying jobs because some significant fraction of women want a partner who earns as much or more than they do.
This is the reason I joined tech. I could’ve done other careers but I wanted a job that could support a family and allow me to still be present with them. (And offer really good growth in income if family didn’t work out)
> This would be great, but the question remains what to do if the jobs men prefer are being paid more than jobs women prefer. Is sexism why that's the case, or is there some other driving factor why society is valuing male preferred jobs higher?
Yes, supply and demand is generally the driving factor for how things are priced.
NATO was created to fight against Soviet Union/Russia so I don’t think that this will be a case. Long time ago Putin they’ve asked him about it in the interview and replied that he asked Clinton (I think) and he just laughed.
No one knew his plans for a fact but since NATO betrayed him multiple times and growing up in the SU he probably romanticized it a lot which eventually created this situation.
If everyone is in NATO who are they gonna be fighting against then?
The fact that you acknowledge that you are `woman and LGBT` says it all. You either trolling or else.
Western society still amazes me. People are not doing their job and not following the mission just because their company is not inclusive and diverse enough.
This could be an interesting question that I think is okay to ask? How far is too far when it comes to existing gendered language? Is it okay to ask that question too?
Your examples/jokes are odd, you've taken already gender-neutral language and replaced it.
> The human desire for everyone to conform to my worldview.
Is that not what's happening relative to gendered language and folks who wish to move away from it?
That sounds normal to the point that it's boring. I remember ~10 years ago I was introduced to this concept in a way I was able to understand via an episode of a video program called "Taboo". The particular episode was about gender differences in Romania (I hope I'm not misremembering), specifically about a bit of the culture that "allowed" a biological woman to live their life out the way a man traditionally would.
Someone from that culture could easily be looking at the English-speaking world and wondering why this is even being discussed: it's not even weird.
Someone from your culture seems to be looking at the English-speaking world and wondering why this is even being discussed: it's utter nonsense.
I do love this point about different languages, though. Many languages have gender as a default.
A very small % of the population identifies outside of the conventional gender bounds. If anyone is getting fired, it's for not respecting the preferences and wishes of their coworkers, which seems quite reasonable. If someone refused to call me by nickname, and insisted using my legal name, for example, I'd probably be quite bothered.
Where does it say this is language is inherently bad? I'm not sure it does. As members of a software-focused community, can't we look at existing solutions that work okay and strive to make them even better? We all do this quite a bit in code review, for example.
