People have a right to form groups and freely interact with others to the extent that they chose - that's a right not a privilege.
The absurdity of the arguments in this threat are revealing - HN is normally viscerally against any kind of authoritarian appeal, hacking on cops for arresting actual criminals ... but for this one ... they're supporting coercive and completely disproportionate actions by the state?
Because someone was called some names and meant to feel bad about themselves?
You can see how quickly the hand of angry populist authoritarianism comes out, like a bad religious movement, whenever it triggers some group's sensitivities.
First: If you are in a leadership position, you have a duty of care to the way you practice leadership. And yes, a lot leadership consists of the language you use.
Second: Someone feeling bad isn’t the problem here. The problem is choosing words which set company cultural norms to be hostile to employees based on unchangeable characteristics of their birth unrelated to the purpose of the group.
Third: People do have a right to form groups and a wide range of norms they have a right to set within those groups. That right is constrained by certain responsibilities —- one of which is to be less racist!
No, not really. Just because you managed to put together a business model and get an investor to trust you with some cash that does not mean you have a greenlight from society to act as racist and as sexist as you desire. Everyone around you still has the right to be treated with respect and not be subjected to any sort of abuse, specially those that are actively working to validate your business and make you rich.
In fact, allowing for a racist/sexist work environment to fester is an incredibly stupid move, as you're hindering productivity and limiting your access to skilled employees.
"They didn't put in the accessibility ramp - stop capitalism now!"
So once again - hyperbole - this time with a strawman thrown in for good measure.
Nobody is remotely suggesting someone shouldn't be able to go to work and not be called racial slurs.
The issue is a) to what degree this is systematic and a part of company function and b) proportionality.
The ruling is unreasonable and stupid, it's driven by greed, ideology and a 'law by litigation' approach to everything, which doesn't bode well for anyone.
I'm not disagreeing that the state should be given limited to zero say on the assembly of people but companies should not be framed as the counterweight against authoritarianism but another manifestation of it.
