This post seems a little naive to me, and certainly couldn't apply to every single person who no longer has a home in California. We've developed technology and built homes so that we didn't have to deal with living in the outside world - to keep the outside from coming in, so to speak - and it gives us choice and stability, if we are able to maintain our possession of it without too much stress and trouble. That it is still hard to keep a home in a lot of places should be a real concern - things like that are not good for anybody. Homelessness can hurt people and hurt communities. I'd want to see some real investigation rather than conjecture about whether these specific people are doing it out of choice, or whether they are capably dealing with the extremely difficult and unpredictable circumstances that often accompany homelessness. The perspective you are arguing from kind of seems sheltered to me. There have been many more people protesting across the U.S. in the last few years than have been living the idyllic and romantic hobo life, free from stress and want.
Your mother does not seem like much of an unassailable source of wisdom when it comes to the realities of poverty - maybe you should argue from a more personal or sourced perspective about what it is like to be poor or homeless and what kind of conditions folks in such a position experience?
The way you make the unfavorable comparisons worse is by taking them seriously. I wouldn't suggest taking those co-workers too seriously either - it probably won't help.
Ellen Pao wasn't awful, but all-in-all, it's probably a good thing she stepped down. Hopefully, next time there's a huge community changeover or staff change in reddit, everyone will talk through it and about it reasonably, and everyone will be able to bat away the easily-led and the gleeful and/or bored shit-stirrers.
What takeaway should we have about those drunken coworkers? I see roughly three possibilities:
* Their comments were funny / reasonable / etc.; there was nothing wrong with them. GP was wrong to find it disgusting.
* Their comments were bad, but there's nothing we can do about them. Our society involves it being socially acceptable to tell jokes about how people should die because of their inability to articulate clear moderation policies on a popular website, and that's unfortunate, but there's no way that we'll be able to change that social norm. (Or, alternatively, changing that social norm carries unavoidable downsides.)
* Their comments were bad, it's possible to make it no longer socially acceptable to make those jokes, and it should happen.
This doesn't really have anything to do with how seriously we take them.
The 4th option would be to just not assign a moral value to their comments, and chose for yourself as an individual to not let yourself be offended by them. It doesn't mean the co-workers were right, but it doesn't penalize them if the didn't intend to be bad (because doing so would be a slippery slope to thought policing). Unless OP thinks his/her co-workers would face Pao in person and tell her those things, or worse, act on them, then is there any reason to let their silly actions cause you any distress?
OP did not say he was offended, just disgusted. Like "haha gross, look at these shitty guys". Just like if someone starts making racist remarks, even if I don't personally believe they would murder a black person in the street, I will feel embarrassed for associating with them, and recognize that they are shitty people at the moment, and that is not a slippery slope to thought policing. That is how culture slowly fixes itself.
I don't know, where I'm from "disgusted" is a much stronger term than "offended". It's like a visceral repulsion that triggers something bordering on mild rage. I don't know how the OP intended it, but if it's as you describe, then yes, it's not too bad, but I haven't seen that term used so lightly usually.
To me disgusted and offended are unrelated. I'd personally agree that in magnitude of responses, disgusted is probably stronger, but, to me, being disgusted is about finding something to be awful, whereas being offended is like being hurt yourself. As a white guy, I am not offended if a racist guy talks about killing black people. I am disgusted, and hush the room and tell everyone to point and laugh at him.
So here's something that's always struck me as odd about these sorts of defenses of free speech. (This is something I've been thinking about for a bit, so I'm not picking on you specifically, you just reminded me of it.)
I believe in the power of speech. I believe that there is utility in being able to convey my thoughts, without someone else filtering or censoring them, to others. I believe that my words mean things, that they reflect what I believe. I believe that being a person "of your word" is an important thing: that when you say you will do something, you intend to do it. I believe that lies are, of themselves, clearly of negative moral value. (Which is not to express an opinion on whether lies can serve some greater moral good, just to say that they have inherent demerit.) I believe that if I care about my friends, I care about what they say; if I value my friends, I value what they say; if I respect my friends, I respect what they say.
It is out of that conviction that I think that restrictions on one's ability to speak, whether from a government or a private party, carry great power, which, like all power, can be abused.
If I don't assign a moral value to these coworkers' comments, if I don't care what they say, if I don't care to have opinions on their speech lest I risk "thought policing" them, if I believe that people may say bad things while intending to be good (or vice versa) and that's just okay... it seems that I have completely devalued the power of speech, and I have destroyed the very reason we care about free speech, without censoring a single word. If anyone can say anything and it could mean anything or nothing, and nobody cares, what is the point of speech?
The point of drunk, hyperbolic speech is to vent frustration. Just because some kinds of speech can raise armies doesn't mean that all kinds of speech should be treated as if they will.
Me too! That's why I lament the fact that it is not (maybe even quite opposite).
I think we should try it, like trias-politica and all, by trying to keep our legislative leg free from non-democratic influences. Like those mehhhh lobby organisations.
Industrial processes are not necessarily bad. So, too, do many methods exist outside of them that end in a unique product. Know the process and science of your food, and how it relates to the greater system in which you live. The failures and successes of food culture, and its influential place in civilization, can be traced back to our understanding of them and which intentions we have to affect them.
so, google is forced to reveal how it affects and processes search results, at least to the french government (this part was unclear to me). i don't really see what's wrong with that. if google has to approach the market so as to encourage more competition from france, i dont see whats wrong with that either. i dont see why any european company would want to be dependent on an american-based search or really any type of data-handling company at this juncture in international politics. at the very least, reducing google's control on french markets is not a bad thing, and is something google could overcome if it played ball well. if it's not possible to do something fairly, legally, and respectfully, its not worth doing at all.
I think it's really a long, grueling process of dialogue, explanation of practicals, co-operation of all possible interests, and work. It's a systemic change kind of thing, I think. That kind of stuff isn't easy, and if one is aiming for easiness and some approximation of perfection, it requires a lot of friction between global and local changes.
