White Women vs Free Speech: And Google is going to get sued.

Able2know is a place where Freedom of Expression is pretty much allowed. I have opinions that upset Osso, and make Izzy sick (or so he said), and yet I am permitted to express and defend these opinions as I see fit.

Obviously this has nothing to do with the First Amendment, this is a private website. It is the values of the owner and the moderators of this website that account for the freedom of expression here. But, in my opinion, that is what makes Able2Know great. Anyone is free to express, argue and promote any opinion (with very few exceptions that I have seen).

The result is a far different experience than sites like Facebook that promote ideological bubbles. Facebook only feeds you posts that it thinks you will appreciate, and it does a pretty good job of it.

The leads to the question Does Izzy accept the freedom of expression that exists on Able2Know? He says that the opinions I am expressing here "make him sick", and yet he is right here, not only reading the thread (something he could choose not to do) but participating in it in his own special way.

He somehow feels compelled to come to do battle... not by responding in any rational or try to refute points. His role here is to make personal attacks; people who don't agree with him are "liars", "mysoginists", "rape-apologists", "fascists"... the list goes on.

So why does he do this, when he says it "makes him sick" and he could simply go to a place where opinions are regulated and he will only see points of view that don't offend him?

There are two motivations for these calls to regulate the expression of ideas.

1. People have a point when they argue that work is not voluntary, and that people who have a job shouldn't be in a position where they feel threatened. I fully support laws against harassment at work be it against a race, a religion or a gender.

I would argue that there is a line that companies need to draw. As an employee I prefer more freedom of expression with the understanding that there are many factors at play. This is one of the reason that choose to work at small companies where cultures can be built around team members and people can work out their differences as people.

This is complex and different teams will resolve them in different ways.

2. But there is also a societal urge to stamp out and punish certain opinions even outside of the workplace.

I am curious if Izzy would kick me off Able2Know if he had the power, I would hope not, but I suspect he would. And he could make me disappear with one push of the "ignore" button, but that isn't good enough. The very fact that I am expressing these opinions makes him sick.

I think the general urge of the ideological left (and I do see it on the left more than on the right) is a problem. Ideas are being shouted off of campuses (the very place that different ideas should be encountered) and insulted off of public discussion forums.

Able2Know is not Google, in that we are all here in a place that allows free expression by choice. Anyone who doesn't enjoy encountering different ideas is crazy to be in a place built to allow just such a thing. But I think it is a benefit.

The idea that Izzy can bully, insult and drown out different opinions in a forum that allows free expression is foolish. A world where everyone adheres to the straight and narrow view of upright thought is boring (and a little repressive).

Just to be clear (in my ramblings).

This is the reason I love Izzy. He represents the perfect example of what happens when the free expression of ideas meets someone who holds unwavering beliefs about right and wrong.

He can't turn away from something "wrong" being said on the Internet in spite of the fact he says it makes him sick. He can't ignore it. And, he can't discuss it rationally. All he can do is attack the people with whom he disagrees; "liar", "misogynist", "asshole", "wanker", "fascist"... the list of labels he uses goes on.

It doesn't really fit in with the idea of a site that allows for free expression of ideas, but it makes a great example of what I see as a problem in society at large.

I love Izzy. But I appreciate the intelligent responses from DrewDad and Engineer too.

OK, so by "freedom of expression" you mean "freedom from consequences."

Every action has consequences. If he didn't understand the possible consequences of his action, that's too bad for him.

He just doesn't get that at all.

Its like those who argue that the "right to the pursuit of happiness" is a guarantee of happiness or that any means of pursuit is a right.

Do you know how to use google?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Groupthink



It's a well-known psychological phenomenon in group decision making, and has nothing to do with ideology.

Uh, yeah. I think that's the whole point of firing this guy.

You aren't making any sense. What do you mean by "freedom of expression"?

If someone was fired for saying something that you agree with... let's say transgender rights to use the bathroom of their choice... would you see a difference between "freedom of expression" and "freedom from consequences".

I don't see how you can argue that "freedom of expression" can exist when you are under the threat of losing your job.

It seems to me that people who agree with you have "freedom from expression" where as people from outside of your ideology have "freedom from consequences". If this isn't the case, then please explain...

Google has stated that they want people to feel comfortable expressing diverse opinions. If that isn't a goal, then firing this guy makes sense. They are making contradictory statements.

That is exactly what is happening here. You and Engineer have disagreed with me, but you have done it responsibly. Izzy and Emmet have used personal attacks (I don't really mind, but they make my point pretty well).

If someone gets fired for expressing an unacceptable viewpoint, that is pretty much the definition of "actively suppressing" them. And, you see a wholesale suppressing of dissenting viewpoint outside as well.

Let me ask you the question DrewDad, should my viewpoint (or even his viewpoint) be suppressed outside of a workplace environment? Or is this something that should be discussed openly?

I haven't made that argument. You're the one decrying that this fellow should have "freedom of expression" and freedom from consequences.

<shrug>

You might be for freedom from consequences, but you just haven't made very good arguments to support your case.

Here is the real question I have for you, DrewDad If you don't deal with any of the other issue I raise, I would appreciate that you deal with this one.

What should happen to people who don't agree with you. You have stated (without proof) that teams would be better off without them. You have said that they should be fired.

Are you really saying that people who have the wrong opinions should be kept from working anywhere? I hope you would at least offer us some sort of rehabilitation program so that have the chance of accepting the correct answers.

If people have to have the correct beliefs in order to get any job... I suppose that eventually we will all come around to see the light. After all, I have a daughter to feed. If the choice is between agreeing with you, or having food to eat then please... tell me what to think.

Nice try at moving the goalposts.

This isn't a case of people simply disagreeing.

I am stating that you can not have "freedom of expression" without having "freedom from consequences". They are the same thing.

In North Korea, anyone has the physical ability to stand in the street and shout "Our Stupid Dear Leader is an Fraud". That doesn't mean they have "freedom of expression". What gives me freedom of expression in the US is that I can shout "Donald Trump is an idiot" without being put in jail.

If you punish someone for their opinions, it isn't "freedom of expression".

Can you demonstrate that logically?

You're making an assertion, which I do not find compelling.

I am willing to see the nuance here DrewDad, my position is not an absolutist one. This guy's opinions made other employees uncomfortable, and there is a reasonable argument to be made that Google had to fire him to made a safe workplace environment.

I hope you can understand the gray area here. The question is whether the opinions he posted were offensive enough on an individual level to justify his firing. I would argue no (and there are female engineers who agree with me).

But the other issue is the desire of the ideological left to stifle the discussion about efforts to increase the participation of women in engineering. This is not a clear cut issue of right or wrong, there are lots of issues here. The science isn't clear, the effectiveness of current efforts to increase diversity aren't clear, the "correct" policy for the stated goals aren't clear. And there is no willingness to discuss the cost of these policies.

I think my North Korea example was pretty good. Can you explain why you don't feel this is compelling?

I gave you an example of where "freedom of expression" and "freedom from consequence" were the same thing (actually by "consequence" here, we mean punishment... he was fired).

Can you give me an example where these two things are different?

If I have the power to get you fired if you express an opinion I don't approve of, you don't have freedom of expression.

This is the reason that professors get tenure. When a professor gets tenure, she no longer has any consequences for expressing her opinions.

Because Google is not North Korea.

You cannot take a specific case, and automatically assume it generalizes to all cases.

Glad to hear it.

So you admit that in some cases it is OK to be punitive for offensive speech?

So, why did you deliberately confuse the gender issue of the topic by linking it to a specific racial group, White, in the title of this thread?



Do you have some sort of problem discussing women inclusively, as a highly diverse gender group? Is that why you, again, arbitrarily narrow it to "white women" in order to bolster your otherwise flimsy reasoning?

Which group was granted the full status of citizenship first--the right to vote--African Americans or women? Is it really that surprising that the U.S. would elect a male African American to the office of the President before ever electing a female to that office?

And, let's not forget that a considerable number of those African Americans and Native Americans you referred to, who endured the racial hardships/atrocities inherent in U.S. history, were women.

Race and gender are different but, because gender crosses all racial lines, it makes little to no sense to limit the discussion of women--and their biological or personality traits as a group --to only one racial group.

If you really want to discuss these issues, stop truncating them in a manner designed to bolster only the arguments you want to advocate. And, try actually paying attention to the excellent counter-arguments made by engineer, Drew Dad, and emmett grogan, all of whom have pointed out issues, and factual points, you just keep ignoring. I think people have a tendency to get tired of pointing things out to you, factual things, because their efforts often fall on deaf ears.

Firefly, I don't know what you are talking about.

DrewDad and Engineer have both respectfully and intelligently brought up valid points. I have responded to both of them with respect.

I don't think Emmet's posts have been very good. His main point has been that hate speech is not protected speech (something I disagreed with). I still answered his points, and supported my arguments without attacking him. At the end it seemed that Emmet and I were in agreement.

And I have been balanced. I accept that there are two sides to this argument, and I have tried to discuss the important questions.

I don't get your complaint. I think that there is a liberal ideology at work here that makes questioning difficult.