News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by tomc1985 on Sunday June 26, 2022 @12:48AM (#31881173)
I attended a rally and march on Roe v Wade last night, and it was alarming to hear just how many other issues rally leaders tossed into the ring, to a large cheering crowd. Some of these were things have a legitimate intersection with reproductive rights -- minority access to equal healthcare, or the various kinds of service ghettos that spring up minority neighborhoods, or other issues SCOTUS has indicated it wants to weigh in on -- but several had nothing to do with reproductive rights: ACAB, or reparations, for example.

And then, to make it even worse, they went on to tell the crowd that you HAVE to care about these issues if you care about Roe v Wade. And if you don't, then "get the hell out of our way". So either you agree 100% with the hivemind and their dated BLM script, or fuck you. To say nothing of the fact that the person shouting this stuff seemed to cherish just how many different labels she could attach to herself to appear more credible.

I consider myself a staunch independent and this was downright insulting. The operatives instigating all of this do not want people making rational points with their minds, they want a mental hegemony to act as a bedrock for their political war machine.

Given that and how political discussions seem to be playing out everywhere, I don't think anyone should be supporting these kinds of discussions at work. Should companies willingly allow space for crowdsourced political brainwashing?

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by UkrainianJew on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:31AM (#31881384)
In general, when somebody is advising you against discerning, untangling and questioning, chances are, you are being manipulated.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by pas on Monday June 27, 2022 @01:23PM (#31897727)
... ironically this sugar-free watered-down self-defeating super-dumb twitter-compatible version of solidarity (dare I say intersectionality) is also the result of a loss of nuance and untangling.

it's critical to stand with others, but it's dumb to hold back good things for a minority group all groups can get what they want, and ostracizing and exiling others because they don't care enough about all the other things some cabal of the organizers of some particular movement/protest is the exact opposite of accepting others. and yes, there are issues where the tolerance of intolerance can become a serious problem, but to find those it's surprisingly not enough to apply mob justice on the spot. aaaaand yes, there are those things where even that's okay (let's say someone starts to unfurl a nazi flag)

(and excuse me for my own rudimentary dumbing down.)

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by tomc1985 on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:45AM (#31881441)
If only this message was spread more widely!
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by rayiner on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:08AM (#31881270)
The irony is that if it wasn’t for intersectionality, there’s a good chance Democrats could have held their traditional ambivalent stance on immigration, and Trump wouldn’t have gotten elected and wouldn’t have gotten those Supreme Court picks. Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest, Black people in the south) to win elections.

Half of Black people in Georgia oppose abortion, but 90% vote Democrat. I wonder what it’s going to do to Democratic turnout in Georgia if donors in New York and California make the 2022 and 2024 elections all about abortion.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by TMWNN on Sunday June 26, 2022 @05:38AM (#31882414)
>Now, pro choice Democrats are in the tough spot of being totally dependent on the most socially conservative part of their coalition (Hispanics in the southwest

This faction's support for Democrats is rapidly disintegrating, based on the massive shift to Trump seen in the Texas border counties in 2020. Like, 30 points' worth of movement.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by rayiner on Sunday June 26, 2022 @08:53AM (#31883460)
Notably, whether Republican Myra Flores holds onto the 85% Hispanic House district she recently won in the special election, it’s notable that the Democrat she defeated was also pro life. Vicente Gonzales, who will run against her in November, is also pro life.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by cudgy on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:22PM (#31885859)
Isn’t her district being redrawn and possibly affecting demographics? I might have misheard.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by rayiner on Sunday June 26, 2022 @02:12PM (#31886362)
Redistricting made her district more favorable to Democrats and Democrats are expected to take back the seat next year. But the Democratic candidate, Vicente Gonzales, is also pro life: https://sbaprolife.org/representative/vicente-gonzalez

Pro-choice Democrats have painted themselves into a tough spot. After moving left on race and immigration, they lost significant support in the Midwest and Rust Belt. They assumed that pickups among Hispanics in the southwest and south would offset those losses. But Hispanics are more conservative than whites on abortion. (Polling shows that about the same percentage of both, 40%, oppose abortion: https://www.pewresearch.org/religion/fact-sheet/public-opini.... But abortion views are strongly correlated with age, and the median Hispanic is 14 years younger than the median white. Which means that at any given age range—such as the age ranges that tend to vote—Hispanics are more conservative. Moreover, because Democrats win only a minority of the white vote, they need to win 70%+ of the Hispanic vote.)

Democrats have reframed figures like David Portnoy and Joe Rogan—folks who appeal to white working class folks in the Midwest and Rust Belt—as “right wing” and “racist, sexist, and homophobic.” But note that both strongly sided with liberals on Roe being overturned: https://www.foxnews.com/media/barstools-dave-portnoy-rips-ro.... This group is less religious than the GOP as a whole, and has long been willing to at least go along with keeping Roe even if they were personally pro life.

Democrats traded a less religious, more individualistic part of their coalition, for a more religious, more family oriented one.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by cudgy on Sunday June 26, 2022 @09:41PM (#31889765)
Yes, the days of Democrats taking for granted minority voters and lumping them as a simplistic population of left-minded voters may end soon. However, it might be too late; the Republicans may hold these new converts for a long time, especially given the younger demographic of hispanics. Many of us tend to follow the party that we start with as new voters in our early twenties.

It seems to be the Republicans game to lose, which they have proven to be far better at avoiding than the Democrats. Abortion though is one issue that Republicans have bet the ranch on in the past with disastrous results. It is a land mine for them if they go too far with it.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by labster on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:14AM (#31881297)
I guess you haven’t been to many rallies or protests. People always show up with unrelated issues, and there’s not much you can do about it as an organizer. I helped to organize a protest asking Trump to release his taxes, and people showed up with signs to abolish ICE (immigration enforcement). I went to a rally to get out the vote, and the local congresswoman was drowned out by a woman who wanted her son freed from prison. Politicians will push whatever they think is advantageous to themselves (though the better ones will stay on topic).

Free speech is a wonderful thing, but there can be too much of a good thing. Learning when to shut up can be valuable too, one doesn’t offend people like the parent post.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by tomc1985 on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:46AM (#31881450)
You are right in that I don't do rallies. But anger at the situation led me to join this one, where I was promptly reminded why I find political types so repulsive.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by UkrainianJew on Sunday June 26, 2022 @01:34AM (#31881397)
Yep, and then you do an anti-vaccine-mandate rally in Canada, one idiot with a swastika shows up, and then media goes on for weeks how everyone opposing vaccine mandates is a Nazi.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by labster on Sunday June 26, 2022 @03:47AM (#31881946)
I do feel for you, even being on the opposite side of the issue. The press is too driven to present outrage, so you lose the message 99% of the people were there to deliver.
[dead]
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by tacitusarc on Sunday June 26, 2022 @12:30PM (#31885364)
It’s fascinating to me how being against a particular behavior being mandated is now considered being against the behavior.
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by gruez on Sunday June 26, 2022 @08:51AM (#31883447)
[dead]
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by gruez on Sunday June 26, 2022 @09:48AM (#31883943)
Or that might be a situation of no one wanting to enact vigilante justice against someone who's not actively doing anything violent? This isn't hard to imagine. In my experience, anti-social behavior on public transit is regularly met with apathy from all the other passengers, yet I doubt you'd lump all the passengers as being anti-social and/or condoning anti-social behavior themselves.
[dead]
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by gruez on Sunday June 26, 2022 @12:53PM (#31885574)
> You're blatantly ignoring the white supremacist views and actions of literal neonazis

>Sorry, but I don't care if they're being actively violent at that moment in time because their views are centered around oppressing others and committing violence against minorities and other "nonwhites"

Okay, let's compare apples to apples then. If there was a "literal neonazi" on a subway car and he was unmolested by fellow passengers, would you conclude that public transit users are nazis? This more or less follows the thought process of the parent comment, ie. "you do an anti-vaccine-mandate rally in Canada, one idiot with a swastika shows up, and then media goes on for weeks how everyone opposing vaccine mandates is a Nazi".

>So again, sorry if I don't have any sympathy for literal Nazis

You totally missed the point of my comment. I'm not defending "literal Nazis", I'm pointing out the fact that not enacting vigilante justice on "literal Nazis" is pretty common, so the fact that a "literal Nazi" was roaming around the protest unmolested isn't really indicative of anything. Outside of far-left groups, I suspect the amount of "punch a nazi" type of people is minuscule.

[dead]
Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by gruez on Sunday June 26, 2022 @03:41PM (#31887237)
>If they were parading around swastikas yea, I'd expect at least a few people to stand up and say something

"say something" and then what? Convince them that being a nazi is bad so they leave? Let's be real here, the only realistic way of dealing with a nazi at a protest is through physical force.

>I also didn't call the anti vax protestors Nazis. I said they were okay with Nazism, while similar it is different

1. the wording is from the parent post, not you

2. Does this change much? Would you call that bus/subway full of people as being "okay with Nazism"?

>I definitely would not want to be associated with Nazis but maybe that's just me

Clearly the organizers doesn't want to be associated with nazis either, but as mentioned above, my suspicion is that unless you're with a group of left wing activists, the chance that there's someone willing to use violence to stop the nazi is fairly low.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by labster on Tuesday June 28, 2022 @01:31AM (#31904439)
Left wing group organizers just call the police when literal nazis show up, and offer to help control the crowd on their side. Unless you have a situation where relations with the police are seriously degraded, they generally want to prevent that conflict, just by being present. The goal is to never lose control of the narrative, and violence always does that.

Incidentally most leftist groups try to keep good relations with the police, even when doing civil disobedience. I’ve seen a large group block traffic, and only those union members who planned to get arrested did so, slowly and quietly.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by soundsgoodtome on Sunday June 26, 2022 @04:00AM (#31881995)
This is how it played out in Austin, which may or may not be the protest you’re referring to.

IMO, the biggest issue here is that no one has any patience for anything anymore (outside of what they’re getting paid to be thoughtful about), so nuance has gone out the window.

Re:Meta bans staff from open discussion of Roe vs. Wade by akomtu on Sunday June 26, 2022 @04:32AM (#31882130)
Such rallies are a lot closer to gypsy dancing where a bunch of drugged participants create a whirlpool of emotions, turn off their minds and unleash their animal side. Speeches there serve as mantras of some sort: they must sound a certain rhythmic way, but their meaning is irrelevant.