Mr. Kaplan’s surprise appearance prompted anger and shock among many Facebook employees, some of whom said they took his action as a tacit show of support for Judge Kavanaugh — as if it were an endorsement from Facebook itself.
This is about as far removed as I can possibly take myself from casting value judgement in one direction or another wrt Kavanaugh and the allegations against him but there's something weird in the air when one can't even be seen in the same vicinity as someone accused of {thing_goes_here} without someome somewhere connecting all sorts of dots that have no business being connected and being one reflexive twitch away from having their character assassinated in the worst possible ways.
At last Friday’s staff meeting, Mr. Zuckerberg defended Mr. Kaplan’s appearance as a personal decision that did not violate company rules. Mr. Zuckerberg also said he trusted Mr. Kaplan’s judgment, even though he himself would most likely not have chosen to attend the hearing, said two people who were at the meeting.
The messaging backfired. Some employees — particularly women — said it came across as if Mr. Zuckerberg was shrugging off Dr. Blasey’s comments about sexual assault, saying that the chief executive’s remarks had caused “stress and trauma” and were “painful to hear.”
If you have a policy that people can have their own beliefs and opinions, you need to hold to it regardless of whether you like how it's used. It's like free speech (is is free speech), and I suspect all these same people would also be very upset if someone faced repercussions from management for supporting or appearing with a person or cause very strongly associated with liberalism. And they would be right to be upset in that case. But you can't have it both ways.
Freedom of speech is one of our most important rights, and if you find yourself at odds with it, you should really examine if your feelings are just. They might be, but in my opinion, the cases where that's true are fairly rare.
What infringement of freedom of speech is there here? Kaplan is free to go to this event, and Facebook employees are using their free speech to complain about him.
Besides, it matters how this turns out. Supporting an innocent man wrongly accused and supporting someone who turns out to be a rapist are two different things.
> Facebook employees are using their free speech to complain about him.
But they aren't, they are also complaining about the CEO standing up for Kaplan's right to espouse his views, or in this case stand by a friend. Just standing by the principle of free speech, which is very clearly what's being asserted by Zuckerberg here, is what's causing problems in the specific portion I quoted.
> Supporting an innocent man wrongly accused and supporting someone who turns out to be a rapist are two different things.
If you know the person who ends up being found out as a rapist, and beforehand you believe them, then no, there's no difference. I will not condemn anyone that stands by their beliefs if they are founded on evidence (even if it's personal knowledge of someone's character over a couple decades) and based on just principles.
Edit: To be clear, I'm not saying anyone's first amendment right was infringed, I'm saying that a company espousing similar rights for its employees with regard to employment is usually a laudable thing, and coming out against that should make one think carefully.
> But they aren't, they are also complaining about the CEO standing up for Kaplan's right to espouse his views, or in this case stand by a friend. Just standing by the principle of free speech, which is very clearly what's being asserted by Zuckerberg here, is what's causing problems in the specific portion I quoted.
IMO, this hoo-haa has nothing to do with free speech. The employees of facebook aren't saying that the Kaplan should have his speech be restricted by the government (what the 1st amendment actually protects), they are saying that they aren't comfortable working for a company where someone in his position holds these views and they are exerting their collective power to carry out their will. People like Zuckerberg and Kaplan have orders of magnitude more political power in clubby Washington connections and cold hard cash than any individual facebook employee. Facebook employees pooling their power should be something we encourage, not something we chill through evasive complaints about "restricting free speech".
> IMO, this hoo-haa has nothing to do with free speech.
It has to do with the concept of freedom of speech, not the first amendment right itself. They are often used interchangeably, and the right is often confused as applying to non-governmental entities doing the infringement. I am doing neither of those, as clarified previously.
> they are saying that they aren't comfortable working for a company where someone in his position holds these views and they are exerting their collective power to carry out their will.
Those views being believe in someone's denial based on their personal experience with that person over decades, in the absence of any other concrete evidence? To be clear, by their own descriptions they are unhappy with him sitting next to someone accused as they presented their side.
> Facebook employees pooling their power should be something we encourage, not something we chill through evasive complaints about "restricting free speech".
We should encourage people pooling their power against those in power when that pooled power is used responsibly. If they wanted to pool their power to enforce a racist or sexist agenda, that would be problematic. But since it's just to punish someone for standing by their friend as they defend themselves, that's okay?
Kaplan's actions should be judged based on his beliefs and whether they are justifiable and just given the evidence present to him (as best we can understand it) and whether his actions are in line with those beliefs.
> If they wanted to pool their power to enforce a racist or sexist agenda, that would be problematic. But since it's just to punish someone for standing by their friend as they defend themselves, that's okay?
The personal is political, especially when the person is going to recieve a lifetime appointment to a position of huge political power. Especially when there is a widespread suspicion that he will overturn Roe v Wade.
There's also the consideration as a senior manager in Amazon: by standing behind the person accused of harassment, he's saying to his staff "if you accuse someone of harassment, I will have their back rather than yours".
> The personal is political, especially when the person is going to recieve a lifetime appointment to a position of huge political power. Especially when there is a widespread suspicion that he will overturn Roe v Wade.
Only if you make it so. I mean, we're talking about employees putting the blame on their CEO because he supports another employees right to sit next to someone they know who is accused of a crime.
I think if when people are going after someone two steps removed who is standing up for one of the major ideals of freedom, then perhaps those people reexamine their own actions and motivations closely.
> by standing behind the person accused of harassment, he's saying to his staff "if you accuse someone of harassment, I will have their back rather than yours".
No, that's definitely not being said, as clearly outlined by him through his statement that he is doing this in support of someone that is his good friend, that he believes.
That some employees cannot seem to separate someone's actions in their private life from their professional life is unfortunate. People seem too willing to condemn behavior that they would support given a few different details. Being upset does not justify a position. In fact, I would say people being upset and using that to justify their actions and beliefs is likely what put us on this path two years ago, and that both sides are willing to do it doesn't make it better, not at all.
We are on the verge of a complete authoritarian takeover of government. At this point, pooled power is the only power many of us have left to fight against this.
I don't understand how you believe it's a stretch that these dots are being connected. Why else would he have been there? He wasn't "in the same vicinity" as Kavanaugh. You make it seem like Kaplan decided to shadow a active court case and it "just happened" to be Kavanaugh's.
It's not just being seen with someone. He went to a public, televised hearing to sit behind him. It's a show of support coming from a public face of FB.
"him" is his friend FTA. I feel like there's a gap between appearing at these hearings at surface level and showing up because its your friend giving testimony.
Maybe I'm being too nuanced and applying too much of the human element by looking at it like so but it's that very gap between supporting Kabanaugh the nominee who lost his temper in a SJC hearing and supporting Kavanaugh his friend accused of sexual assault and the focus of a Senate confirmation and FBI investigation that makes me take the position I have here.
It's pretty well-established that you can be fired or suffer repercussions by your employer, for things that you do on your own personal time. There's plenty of people who did something shocking or offensive, a video went viral, and they found they'd lost their mcjob, so let's not pretend this is unusual at all.
If anything stricter standards should be applied to upper management than to the rank-and-file, because part of the job is absolutely to be publically representing facebook, so it's really unsurprising that people are perceiving it as such. Keeping your nose clean is part of why they pay you the big bucks.
Kaplan is free to go to this as a private citizen, people are free to be shocked by it, and Facebook is free to do something about it if the negative attention becomes a liability. That's how things work.
Unlike the McJob worker, if they do want to get rid of him, he'll have a nice golden parachute, I'm sure.
While all those statements are technically true, the band of what has become acceptable in Silicon Valley has apparently swung so far to the left that supporting a respected US Circuit Judge in his nomination to the Supreme Court is enough to cause “shock.” In my view, that is the problem - some in our generation believe there is a right to be shielded from dissenting viewpoints to the extent that it has become acceptable in SV to potentially fire someone for what is considered a perfectly reasonable position in most parts of the country.
> some in our generation believe there is a right to be shielded from dissenting viewpoints
I don't think that is the problem at all. Its not that people want to be shielded from dissenting viewpoints, its that the vast majority of people on the right and the left are basically entirely politically disenfranchised, while people like Zuckerberg or Kaplan hold a vastly inordinate amount of power through their connections and their money. What we are seeing here isn't "lefty people crushing dissent", it is "people organizing around and exercising one of the only viable channels of political influence that they have (challenging the means of production of their billionaire boss) in order to exert a tiny amount of political power".
Except in this case Zuckerberg likely agrees with their cause. You don’t see calls from conservative employees at Facebook to fire Sheryl Sandburg for her support of Barack Obama because the predominant political orientation in SV is liberal.
Respected by who? The ACLU, a number of bar associations, several law schools, countless other judges, and even his own roommates have publically denounced Kavanaugh. Don’t pretend this is a matter of ideology.
Interesting that you bring up the ACLU here, several lawyers I know have expressed a bit of surprise at the ACLU denouncing Kavanaugh-as they have a long and established track record of NOT speaking out one way or another on SCOTUS nominations-to say nothing of this move being outside of their very on policy on the affair.
Oh please... Kavanaugh is obviously on the conservative end of the spectrum, but to say he isn’t a respected judge is ridiculous. This is a guy who went to Yale law, clerked for a Supreme Court justice, was a partner at a top law firm and worked his way up to being a US circuit judge. In other words, prior to July, he had probably the most impressive resume you could possibly have for a Supreme Court nomination.
> you can be fired or suffer repercussions by your employer, for things that you do on your own personal time
Yes this happens, but should it be the case? Is this something you morally support? Should people be fired for smoking weed in their personal time? Posting on social media? Making a joke to a friend? Donating a political campaign?
People have been fired for these things but I don't think it should be lauded. I don't think its healthy for companies to monitor their employee's personal life, so they can punish them at work.
The people in charge of these firings are executives like Zuckerberg and Kaplan. It's completely disengenous to phrase the argument as "should this happen at all?" when it's really "should executives be allowed to punish workers for their personal life choices, while not holding themselves to the same standards?"
Are you saying that it is a bad thing. But since it is happening it should happen to everyone? If so, it just seems like you're propagating more of bad thing.
Why not just advocate for the the corporate world to be more accepting of personal life choices? Firing Kaplan doesn't get you any closer to that.
Because they are not going to be more accepting. The leadership is only trying to pull this argument out because it bothers them.
I agree that when all else is equal, we shouldn't do bad things to one person just because they happened to someone else. All else is not equal here. Given the power Facebook has over their employees lives and in politics in general, they are like a feudal lord. When they stop enforcing the rules on just them and their friends, that's a breakdown of the rule of law which leads to a breakdown of social harmony and leads to people starting to rebel against leadership like you see here with Facebook's employees
If the realistic thing is that the higher ups are going to oppress the workers, it's also the realistic thing that they aren't going to oppress themselves.
I would love to be a fly on the wall in whatever court room is utilized for the inevitable lawsuit that comes from someone getting fired for attending a government function that is arguably in the interest of public policy like a SCOTUS confirmation hearing.
Especially when that person has the job title of "VP of Global Public Policy", at-will or right-to-work laws be damned.
Edit:
And no. This isn't me saying that's what should happen or even trying to publicly litigate whether or not such a person would win or should win. Just that that behavior sounds like something that would immediately get an employee sued and I'd really be interested to hear the legal arguments from both sides and the opinion of the court.
So we pivot from "he's just a private citizen supporting his friend on his own time, nothing to do with Facebook!" back to "he's representing Facebook in his professional capacity as a senior management figure"? You can't have it both ways.
Being honest here, there is no direct connection to Facebook's interests. This is not a court case in which Facebook has some stake, at best they would just be there to "show the colors".
Either way you take it, someone is supporting Kav here. It's either Kaplan personally, or Facebook professionally.
(and again, I am also not commenting here about whether he should be confirmed or not, but let's not pretend that everybody just showed up for a free 8oz bottle of water. Whether Kaplan's interest is personal or official, there is an interest.)
I'm not trying to have it both ways, I'm remarking that there may be a very simple and good reason for Kaplan to appear while recognizing there could be very interesting outcomes if-as you put it-he or anyone else were to lose their job for it.
This isn't a remarkably difficult exercise of mental plurality. Nor is it one of partisan critique.
If someone attends a government function as a private citizen and is fired for it, I think that would make for an interesting set of legal questions with regards to employment law.
If someone were fired for doing the same even in an official capacity, that-to me-would be even more interesting. Since you brought up strict standards for certain levels of employees, I responded to that. You can't very logically say my response to this is trying to have it both ways if all I've done is respond to your talking points.
That's all there is to that, imo. Don't read between the lines here because there's really nothing there to read; I am positing that one really doesn't need to connect many dots for Kaplan's attendance at these hearings, but I can entertain the idea you presented: that being fired for attending a government function would make for interesting legal theater as an impartial and dispassionate onlooker.
> It's pretty well-established that you can be fired or suffer repercussions by your employer, for things that you do on your own personal time.
In California, you cannot he fired for political activity. Not saying that his act was political activity, but if he is fired for it, it would be because it’s being viewed as a political activity.
You know, forced resignation is a legally recognized construct. I don't pretend to have any idea what actually happened behind the scenes here, but given the circumstances I can't blindly take his resignation at face value.
Speaking purely hypothetically, there are three possibilities:
1. I resigned without negotiating a constructive separation.
2. I resigned but with a constructive separation leveraged by legal and other (e.g., public relations) risks inherent in (1) and (3), but about which I cannot talk.
3. I was fired under color of resignation, but I for some reason did not pursue legal action under CA Labor Law (1101,1102).
Hope this helps! Probably not, but it should put a stake through any false dilemma (binary exclusive/exhaustive choice).
I'm well aware this is a completely public forum, yet I can't help but feel a bit as though the boss showed up to the water cooler while we were talking about him. I'd like to clarify that my comment wasn't intended to draw things off topic and towards your case specifically, but rather to express my general frustration with what I felt was being implied. I find the idea of presenting something as a counterexample without any consideration of the context to be rather objectionable, particularly when it comes to political topics.
To respond to the content of your post, while your list does cover the legal aspect, it doesn't address the broader topic of whether or not someone can be effectively fired for political activity (though I do appreciate that you in particular might not be legally permitted to address that topic given the current context). Unfortunately, when it comes to contentious topics the appearance at least is that people can often be forced out in one way or another regardless of what the law might say.
Regarding your item 3, and in relation to the broader topic of this thread, in the general case (not you specifically) it would not surprise me at all if someone failed to pursue legal action after being fired (or effectively fired) for political activity. Reasons that immediately come to mind include:
1. Legal action is generally quite expensive in this country.
3. If the political view is even remotely unpopular, the risk of being run through the media may be unacceptable. Consider not just the general aversion most people have to public exposure, but also the impact on future job searches and other similar things.
As a practical example of your average person not wanting to deal with public exposure and controversy, consider the proportion of people who post to this very website under pseudonyms (myself included). Even if you only tally those who keep their posts professional 100% of the time, it's still most of them.
Ok, wow, those really don't seem to leave any room for "creative" interpretations. Thanks for the links! I'm impressed - all too often protections get watered down when being passed into law. I particularly like the inclusion of "or tending to control or direct" in CA 1101.
That being said, my point 2 was that regardless of the strength of protections provided you still have to demonstrate intent (or for CA 1101 "tendency" I suppose) in court. No idea how high that bar is in CA, but regardless, depending on circumstances that really could be very challenging.
I do have to wonder how employers are going to reconcile this with our increasingly connected, reactionary, and polarized culture going forward. Use of social media alone presumably qualifies as "engaging or participating in politics" at this point, so what happens if, for example, a CA employee starts publicly shitposting about a political topic, someone figures out where they work, and things escalate? Your case and Mr. Kaplan's would seem to be only the tip of the iceberg...
Quick note to agree that CA 1101 and 1102 are impressive. They date from 1937. They protect everyone, and were used in a well-known case "Gay Law Students v. Pacific Telephone & Telegraph" (https://web.archive.org/web/20171110205448/https://www.washi...). They are exceptional as you note, in being relatively clearly written. Bring back the 1930s era legal standards!
Kaplan won't be fired, I'm sure: connected friend of Zuck, at FB pre-IPO, VP of global policy. James Damore is a better case, and CA 1101 & 1102 are in fact cited in that amended lawsuit: https://www.dhillonlaw.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/201804....
Contingency fee plus colorable claim often means settlement way before hearing or trial, with non-disclosure clause to keep secrets after. Hard to know how often this happens. Businesses generally strive to de-escalate whenever possible.
To be fair, would anyone have recognized him there without this article pointing it out?
To make this claim valid, that this is a public show of support a multiple of stars would have to align here:
Joel Kaplan must have thought that he's famous enough that people will recognize him in public, better yet the third row of that testimony AND know that he's not a bystander or supporter of the alleged victims, but of the accused. And that he wanted to antagonize half of FB's staff about it.
I'm very grateful to be working at a little company that makes a technically interesting but politically boring product. Work is, for me, not a place to get feather-white about politics, I just fix bugs and talk to customers and troubleshoot problems and develop some features and go home. Talk to the coworkers about our kids and what we're doing over the weekend. It's a very laid-back atmosphere that prioritizes what's right in front of you and doesn't demand a lot of idealism, just competence and bringing in enough profit that we do alright.
I'm with you. Whichever side you're on, Facebook's products and services now have a role in society where their decisions will inevitably have a deep impact. In some cases, like the Rohingya crisis, lives are literally at stake.
It's not just Facebook, either. I got tired of getting a sick feeling every time I woke up to see my employer in another controversy, which is a large part of the reason I'm an indie game developer now.
I hear you, I like the idea of separating out politics from work, but I’m increasingly feeling like everything intersects with politics, and to be apolitical in any area of life is itself a political action in one direction or another.
Maybe it’s just a reflection of how partisanship infects everything, but...it still infects everything, so not sure that pretending otherwise is intellectually honest.
That doesn’t mean we can’t treat each other with respect or consider other viewpoints, of course.
It seems like it is a problem for these people because they've assumed guilt already. Accusations are not proof in and of themselves. I've got no problem with someone supporting a friend while they're defending themselves, no matter their role in a company.
That's the craziness of this whole thing, we're dividing America over an accusation that hasn't been able to be substantiated by any other parties. We're confronted with the most basic form of a "he said, she said" scenario. And you have half the country who assumes innocence, and half who assumes guilt, and these assumptions are made completely on where your political allegiances lie.
I've been talking with a lot of friends and family about the Kavanaugh situation. I have only had two conversations where someone's belief about what should happen here differed from their personal preference about whether Kavanaugh become a SCOTUS justice.
In the vast majority of cases, people's beliefs about what happened just so happens to align with what they want the outcome to be.
Not a personal conversation, but I'd (very slightly) prefer that K wasn't a supreme court justice, although I completely support him in this "innocent until proven guilty" quest, and in fact, since the allegations came out, I even support his nomination, because I think people shouldn't suffer any consequences from unproven allegations (because otherwise it's too easy to hurt someone or make their lives miserable), and it's not like he's getting any other job, ever.
But what I find really, extremely sad, is that the majority of the discussion was on this silly inconsequential topic (inconsequential because it's not like there can be any proof of what happened 35 years ago, so it's never getting resolved one way or the other), instead of on his actual leanings, policy, politics, opinions, etc - what kind of Justice he'll be. That's also why I wrote "(very slightly)" above - I'd prefer the court to be as balanced as possible, and K seems to lean right, but I've such low confidence in this belief (e.g. his actual stances could be "libertarian", like Kennedy's, which is IMO preferable while being neither left nor right) that ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Stop trying to bring gender into it. This isn't about believing a man or believing a women. This is about the presumption of innocense and the need for a preponderence of evidence rather then just an accusation
Why should a person suffer any consequences because of an unfunded accusation? Do you even realize what kind of slippery slope that is?! People have lost jobs, careers because of accusations that have been proven to be false!
In this specific case, given the short time frame involved and extreme vitriol and division between parties and ideologies, I believe there is a non-negligible chance that even if Ford's testimony is entirely true (and I think it is), that others might have piled on accusations to help that claim be more likely to be taken seriously and investigated, and if so they likely fully believe they are patriots in doing so.
I do not want Kavenaugh confirmed, but I can't pretend that the Republicans are the only ones willing to play dirty pool. They seem willing to go further, but both sides of the aisle have fallen considerably in the last few years, and they weren't that high to begin with.
Well, they could just withdraw the nomination, even without admitting belief in guilt ("To help heal this fractured nation, we have decided to nominate someone else..."). Then Kavenaugh loses, and both sides go on to another candidate.
That's a win for the nation, a loss for one man, and a push for both parties. Well, maybe a slight loss for Republicans, but they'll likely get their judge in the end, and with much less controversy, which they could use to their advantage later. It's not like they don't have plenty of judges to choose from (to be clear, they have a large list that would support their goals).
That we can't immediately get past this is sickening.
Withdrawing the nomination just sends the message that due process doesn’t exist. I don’t want him confirmed, but I’m not sure that public rejection of the presumption of innocence by the US government is a price worth paying. Rock and a hard place, as they say.
> Withdrawing the nomination just sends the message that due process doesn’t exist.
Then they should call a recess for some period of time that actually allows some preliminary investigation to happen (far more than a few days, but not more than a few months). My comments are with the understanding that they are unwilling to do so. In that case, they should move on.
It's a win for the nation in that we do not need to have the confirmation process become a circus of political partisanship. An investigation should be carried out, whether Kavenaugh wants one or not, given that he currently holds a high office and it's a public accusation of a felony, but it would beneficial if it was carried out and publicly reported on outside the context of a confirmation hearing. If Kavenaugh is innocent, he loses out, but the Democrats and liberals would also face a large blow to credibility and would have problems doing the same thing again. If he's guilty, we're successfully kept someone guilty of criminal assault from the Supreme court.
It would suck for him if innocent, but that is politics, and it definitely is something he accepted as a possibility along with the nomination. But I do not think he has a right to that position, and the nation's well-being comes far-ahead of any sort of right he might expect anyway. Serving is a privilege, we should not all suffer for his privilege.
I generally find your comment such quality that you don't deserve downvotes, but I've just two comments: (1) the chances of any investigation having any guilty/innocent resolution, given that the alleged crime happened 35 years ago and even very recent rapes basically boil down to he said/she said, is very low, and (2) unfortunately, I've seen no blow to credibility to anyone, despite there having been quite a few highly-publicised rape cases that were proven to be false.
> I generally find your comment such quality that you don't deserve downvotes
Thanks. I attribute that mostly to some poor wording on my part, where I said "But I do not think he has a right to that position" to mean "he's not entitled". Unfortunately it's easily misinterpreted as "so should not get it".
> the chances of any investigation having any guilty/innocent resolution, given that the alleged crime happened 35 years ago and even very recent rapes basically boil down to he said/she said, is very low
That may be, but accusations such as this deserve to be investigated. In the general sense because someone is accusing someone else of (what is usually charged as) a felony assault, and this specific case because we do not want someone like that in power, for multiple reasons (even if we assume he's entirely changed, the blackmail potential if proof does surface is problematic).
> I've seen no blow to credibility to anyone, despite there having been quite a few highly-publicised rape cases that were proven to be false.
I think it's a matter of opportunity and reason. Most accusers probably aren't linked to (or more importantly and accurately, able to be implied as linked to) a coherent adversarial cause backed by an organization and ideology.
What that basically means is that next time, instead of a nominee on the stand talking about what sounds like a conspiracy theory about the Clintons and Democrats doing a concerted smear campaign that isn't true, they'll be able to point at a specific prior instance as evidence. That's extremely powerful.
It's completely undeniable at this point that he committed perjury, at a minimum. Several times.
His friend stated he called him up to coach him what to say about the rape accusations, at a date supposedly before he ever learned about the accusation (per his sworn testimony before congress). i.e. Kav was fully aware that an accusation was going to come out (because it is likely true).
Apart from that, there's his hilariously transparent lies about his drinking and antics in the greek life. Everyone who's known him says he was the absolute model of a drunk frat party boy, hell his friend Mark Judge published a book about it. And yes, drunk college antics are not a huge deal (as long as he didn't rape anybody), but lying to congress's faces is perjury regardless.
This isn't a courtroom and we don't have to reach an ironclad verdict on the rape beyond a reasonable doubt. We should not appoint a perjurer who is trying to coach his witnesses to a lifetime appointment in a powerful political seat.
Why are people outraged before a sentence is pronounced? Are allegations now enough to convict someone? What happened to the West? Is this the beginning of the end ?
Part of the outrage is that the Senate first tried to not consider the allegations at all. Then they didn't listen to all of the evidence known at the time when they did hold hearings. Then they used a limited FBI investigation that appears to have skipped a lot of evidence.
Enough people who knew Kavanaugh in high school, college, and law school have now come forward with memories that contradict some of his recollections and testimony, especially about the frequency and severity of his drinking, that even if he did NOT do anything to Ford in high school they should raise at least sufficient doubts about his fitness for the Court on other grounds to justify more investigation.
Yet, the Senate majority is rushing to vote. What's the hurry? A couple years ago they said there is no problem whatsoever with the Court only having 8 Justices for an extended time (at least three Senators--Burr, Cruz, and Paul--said they were willing to hold it open for five years if Clinton got elected).
Surely they can take a couple weeks or even a month now and thoroughly vet Kavanaugh?
You have to remember the impact this has on society though. The vast, vast majority of sexual assault allegations are ignored and this has only started to improve recently. By not thoroughly investigating you send a message to victims (a shockingly large minority) that nothing is changing. Even if he is completely innocent (as he may well be) a thorough investigation is extremely important.
Of course, then there's his behavior while testifying and the contradicting accounts of his drinking.
I disagree (with the first paragraph). I think we're sending a completely wrong message. The message we should be sending is, (1) protect yourself (i.e. personal responsibility, holds true for all members of the society, but unfortunately a highly controversial suggestion), (2) say "no" (if you boss asks you for sexual favours), and (3) report them to the police. Instead, we're promoting mob justice, lack of due process, lying (most of the false accusers get away with it unscathed) and sexism (believe women). I also wouldn't be surprised if this sets back the "equality movement" significantly, as more CEOs implement the "Pence rule" of not spending alone time with women (including employees).
I'm thinking its time to pull the plug. Why are we looking to lower the bar for this guy? We can find somebody, easy, who doesn't drink like a fish and harass women. Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill?
We're not trying to fill this post with not-quite-the-bottom-of-the-barrel, and we should stop trying. Lets try somebody clean to start with? Look for the best, instead of the not-the-worst?
And this dude is not being 'unfairly treated', forget that. I don't get to be a Supreme Court Justice either. Almost nobody does. He wants to do public service he can go volunteer at a Senior Center. Hell, he can take up woodworking, I don't care. He should just get the hell off the stage and lets start looking again.
We can find somebody, easy, who doesn't drink like a fish and harass women
No you can't. No judge the Republicans nominate will not be the target of some accusation by some woman at this point. If "the bar" is that no Democrat female accuses the nominee of something then then Supreme Court will be ...
... Maybe a woman judge would fill the bill?
Ah, now I get it.
Yes that's right. Make it impossible for a man to be a judge by insisting that any and all claims must be believed no matter how ancient, vague or implausible, to ensure that the court ends up packed with women.
If America continues down this path it will end very, very badly for women. We could easily end up returning to a time where women are disbelieved by default when they make an accusation of something. The Kavanaugh case has to be one of the clearest cases I can see of a frivolous politically motivated complaint (which is very likely false). Accusations of sexual assault are not tools to try and tilt the composition of courts.
There's no sentence or prosecution here, it's a job appointment. I'm unclear why there is apparently only one candidate and we can't just have someone less controversial.
There were a number of candidates, and one was chosen by the head of the Executive branch. The Senate then gets to approve or deny the choice. This is all in the Constitution.
If I recall correctly, the bar used to be 60% for approval, by gentleman's agreement. A few years ago, the Democrats decided to discard that agreement (executing the so-called "nuclear option"). Now they're paying the price.
Ultimately the electorate will judge what was done. At the moment, it appears that they're leaning against the Democrats' strategy, but we'll know more after the mid-term results are in.
Well, that's a matter of your starting assumptions. If you think the accusations are valid, then sure, go find someone else without the baggage, and let's nominate that person.
If you think that there's no evidence supporting the accusations, though, you might suspect that they're manufactured political outrage. (You might even see a pattern with Bork and Clarence Thomas.) You start to wonder if it's possible to find someone for whom the other side won't manufacture outrage. At that point, trying to find someone "less controversial" is a fool's errand.
not a criminal trial, standards of evidence don't apply.
You just watched a federal judge commit several baldfaced lies and rant about political hits. That's not acceptable conduct for the supreme court, full stop.
"We just coordinated a partisan effort to accuse you of sexual assault from an incident no one can remember that occurred 35 years ago, and drag you and your family through the media mud and also call you a gang rapist for an added bonus. Why are you so upset?"
Do you expect the guy to be some sort of emotionless robot? This is classic Alisnky tactics combined with some form of infinite projected purity spiraling to raise the standard for an SC judge to inhuman levels. Thankfully, the right has finally come around to not caring about these tactics being employed by the left.
this is not a trial, it is a job interview - I wouldn't hire a potential employee who behaved the way Kavanaugh behaved in his interview, especially for this job
* criminal justice (where you mete out punishment, and want to act only against confirmed bad people (and in case of doubt, you don't act), and therefore you require very strong evidence against someone), and
* examining candidates for one of the most elevated positions in government (where you hand out power, and want to appoint only confirmed good people (and in case of doubt, you don't appoint), so fairly weak evidence against someone is enough.)
That's not really a particularly hard distinction to grasp.
This. In our industry we reject good candidates all the time, as we'd rather many false negatives than one false positives. This is the same. Hell in ways it's even more important. It's a job for life, with a stupid amount of influence.
> At least until the companies figure out how to crack down on whoever leaks internal discussions to the press.
Considering these companies have tens of thousands of employees, that will never happen.
It's impossible to prevent leaks with these kinds of numbers, and you can be sure the media would raise a huge stink if even one employee is punished for leaking. They would ruthlessly protect their sources.
It's just very unfortunate how politics is becoming such a major issue in what's supposed to be the leading edge of American technology. Instead of innovation, technical merit, sound engineering, and all the other things these employments are supposed to be about.
Politics and divisive discourse and posturing are squeezing out the important matters, and making people uncomfortable at work, a place supposed to be about work.
You cannot get to the scale of Facebook or Google without being political.
These are tech companies in that they sell tech. They are not tech companies as in parties who are only interested in building the best products using technology. As far as how they act silicon valley is turning just as bad as Wall Street
> You cannot get to the scale of Facebook or Google without being political.
There's plenty of counterexamples.
There's huge companies much bigger than FB and Google that were never political outside of tech. Even in tech, you have Microsoft for example. I don't recall them ever being political in the 90s when they got huge. In fact, they don't seem political right now.
Somehow, yes. I may not agree with those employee moods [1], but I understand how a financials magazine would have interest about how one of most valuable tech-stock's most valuable assets is doing: it's devs.
[1] not an American, not living in US either - so don't know any details about the Kavanaugh-Issue
The New York Times is not a "financials magazine". No serious investor would try to infer from such a story about the value of FB stock. They'd be looking at hard data like earning reports, sales figures, expense curves. Not exaggerated click-baity news stories. This is just sensationalism.
Sorry, you're right. I've read the NYT article but had Bloomberg in my mind. My bad. But anyway: if I were holding FB stock, this would be of interest nonetheless. Either to be afraid. Or to know others will be afraid and you can "buy the dip".
Consider how much potential influence Facebook and Google have on politics. Consider how many of our political issues are effected by the decisions of these company's. These people wield a lot of power, potentially political power of they choose to use it. That's why the news covers them.
“If you need to change teams, companies or careers to make sure your day-to-day life matches your passions, we will be sad to see you go, but we will understand,” Mr. Bosworth wrote. “We will support you with any path you choose. But it is your responsibility to choose a path, not that of the company you work for.”
Wow. I hope engineers do quit. It's been unhealthy to the Silicon Valley ecosystem how many engineers Facebook has been hoovering up.
I hope they do too. I don't know who Bosworth is or if he's implementing officially decided policy here, but I hope he is.
It's been incredibly unhealthy for tech firms to cowtow to every whim of their most extreme employees. I spent years at Google and it was astonishing sometimes the ludicrous crybaby behaviour some engineers could get away with. When it was just complaints about the food or reskinning a product it was not that dangerous. Now it's become a tool of all out political warfare, it's well past time these employees are told to get a grip or leave. Facebook won't suffer for it, it'll benefit - yes they may have a marginally smaller workforce, but which would they prefer? A slightly lower number of A/B experiments on their new dating product or whatever the marginal recent increase in headcount is working on? Or a happier and healthier internal atmosphere for all?
This is getting insane. So ousting people from jobs for holding non-lefty political views is not enough. Now a person who has a non-lefty friend or is seen in public with a non-lefty person that is currently undergoing unpersoning campaign is a ground for profound apologies too (and maybe much more, the deed is not done yet and I won't surprise if by the end of it Joel Kaplan decides to spend more time with his family).
No, I stand corrected. This is not getting insane. This is firmly, two feet planted, inside insane territory. Is that what working at Facebook is like - if you go as controversial as supporting a Supreme Court judge, or a lifelong friend, or the idea of due process, you are basically not fit to work there? The small spark of sanity from Zuckerberg does not overcome the overall impression.
Maybe NYT is exaggerating things and this is just small vocal minority which does not reflect the climate in this huge company. One can certainly hope so. But is it true? Is here somebody working for FB that can say if it's indeed as this article seems to suggest - that FB has "policies" that one may violate by merely appearing in public near somebody like Judge Kavanaugh? That your position in the company and your job may be questioned and threatened if you do something like that?
I think you are missing one big point here. Not just someone working at FB went to support Kavanaugh. This person is the VP of global policies so technically he represents FB and the values of it and he did it without seeking any consultations from the company.
Nowadays it seems like everything remotely related to politics has to be discussed in left/right sides, no buffering area. People has to be left or right. What surprises me is the lack of sympathy, seeing things from other people's perspective in both sides. At first I felt like that some of my female friends were overreacting to this Kavanaugh case because Kavanaugh could be totally innocent but I then learned that some of the complaints/remarks are not even about politics. It's more about their personal experience related to sexual harassment. And they did soften their views on the Kavanaugh case when I explained my perspective to them. The point here is that people should communicate, not start internet fights. Sympathy is the key and face-to-face communication probably work better than internet. What I see mostly on the internet when it comes to politics, even on YC, is pointing fingers at each other and that drives people even further away, more extreme to their views.
Back to Facebook, I think it's one of the greatest companies in the world. Just how many companies in the world that would allow such discussion inside the company? Questioning one of the highest executives? Questioning the CEO/Boss? The opinion of every employee matters? And still function so well? Wow, unheard of. People in Silicon Valley is definitely leaning way more toward left than right, especially at big tech firms. However, such open communication inside the company is remarkable and it kind of mirrors the real word when it comes to US politics. Though such open communication can be biased, skewed to one-sided opinion but removing the open communication will not resolve the root problems. Open communication, even online fights, is better than no communication at all. I originally came from a country with complete dictatorship and any discussions about politics/government is banned completely online. It seems very "peaceful and stable" and does have quite a lot of advantages (with millions of problems lurking around) than democracy. However, I think in US it may seem very chaotic/annoying inside the company/country, but it performs well as a whole. The VP who supported Kavanaugh and Zuckerberg seemed to stand their original side and no stories of FB employees going crazy/quitting job coming out (yet?) after this. The point here is democracy, in my opinion, is a privilege and credits should be given to Facebook/Zuckerberg for cultivating such open and unique culture.
> This person is the VP of global policies so technically he represents FB
When he talks about global policies at work - sure. Otherwise - no, he does not. Out of work, he does not represent anybody but himself.
> the values of it and he did it without seeking any consultations from the company.
The idea that a person should seek a permission from a company lawyer to live their personal life is mind-bogglingly wrong and misguided.
> The point here is that people should communicate, not start internet fights.
That would be nice, but if mere act of being present next to an unperson brings calls to fire the thouughtcriminal, is there communication intended? Do the people who demand it want communication or they want prosecution and banishing the heretic?
> Just how many companies in the world that would allow such discussion inside the company?
Depends on the discussion. If you try to out-politcorrect your peers - probably any of them. But try to go the opposite direction - and you find yourself out of the door holding a box pretty quickly. Yes, in this case in FB sanity prevailed, after personal involvement of the CEO. But who can guarantee it would prevail the next time?
> The opinion of every employee matters?
I wonder how much would employee opinion matter if the employee would question some PC-approved company move and for how long such employee would remain an employee. We know the answer for Google. Is it different for FB? I suspect we may find out soon.
> The point here is democracy, in my opinion, is a privilege and credits should be given to Facebook/Zuckerberg for cultivating such open and unique culture.
It's not their culture. It's our culture, whole people, and FB employees that try to remove an executive because he sat on the wrong side on a wrong hearing are not contributing to this culture, they are hurting it. Of course, the democracy in the US is way bigger than Facebook, and Facebook will not hurt it, but people in FB that do things like described above are working against it, and deserve not praise but condemnation.
This seems like an odd reaction from employees. There are many places you can go to work where the institution has clear values and a mission. Fb isn’t one of those places, that should be abundantly clear by now.
So what’s behind this overreaction? The dual need to get paid a fortune and be able to virtue signal about your employer’s political alignment at dinner parties?
> Fb isn’t one of those places, that should be abundantly clear by now.
Do you work there or know someone close who does? This small glimpse into their corporate culture (not to mention Mark or Sharyl's public speeches) is not really indicative of what the ground-level culture is like.
My guess: they're an SV company and the liberal-majority culture of the valley infuses FB.
For the first time ever today, I got a "Sponsored (political)" tweet on my timeline, from Kamala Harris (whom I do not follow), saying: "We need just 198,248 more people to reach our new goal of 1.5 million Americans against Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States. Will you add your name right now?"
When did Twitter start doing "Sponsored (political)"? This seems like a terrible idea.
I don't regularly consume content that contains political advertising. Until today Twitter has never engaged in directly politically advertising to me. Thus it was surprising to see this come up in my timeline--and not in a positive way. The tweet itself also assumes I can't think logically for myself and reach my own conclusions on this whole nomination shitshow, and instead urgently advises me to join in with the [large number] of other people who all believe the same thing, as if that number should be a reason for me to change my mind. This particular tweet comes off as startlingly desperate, only made worse by the fact that it's the first "Sponsored (political)" tweet I've had. The whole thing was a highly negative experience and made me think less of Twitter, the Democrats, Mrs. Harris, and this entire political thing happening right now. Maybe that appeal to bandwagon bullshit sways the minds of idiots, but not me. The whole thing is incredibly insulting to everyone's intelligence.
When it comes to Fortune 500 companies, I think employees are looking for their employers to display the types of values they hold in their actions. Whether that means removing support for conflict minerals, fair wages, etc.
In all, its understandable. Americans tie their occupation to their identify, but I think we are starting the encroach upon the limits of these expectations.
I think the critism of Kaplan is fair not only because he's an executive at Facebook, but because he's their top policy guy and Facebook as been railroaded by the right because of suspicion of bias. It's obviously within his will to show support for his friend, but as someone who I'd think has a feel for politics this was a terrible political/optical move. Especially to be within camera shot of Kavanaugh.
I think people have a fixed amount of complaining they need to do, regardless of the environment they live in.
As the standard of living improve, the outrages will more and more concern non important things.
I think it's just that everyone realised that powerful people can be browbeaten into compliance with almost trivial levels of complaining if it's phrased right. All you have to do is say, "I'm a woman and this is hurtful" (as this article says explicitly is happening in Facebook) and executives, politicians, academics, regulators etc all immediately fall into line. Telling a woman to toughen up is culturally impossible which means all sorts of people have realised they can grab the driving seat of powerful organisations without actually climbing to the top. All the power, none of the responsibility - who can resist such an offer?
So we get this cascade of ludicrous complaints, like the senior police officer in the UK who was suspended for saying "our behaviour must be whiter than white" because using a common idiom for 'not corrupt' is now racist. There's no logic to it, but the ability to anonymously exercise power over a huge organisation at will is irresistable to too many.
This will end only when strong leaders start firing people who try to claim offence at trivial things. The pendulum will eventually swing back - it has to, organisations that don't let it swing will be destroyed by the constant infighting over power.
Well, outrage could be reduced by not doing outrageous things like the entire Kavanaugh appointment process (or indeed the non appointment of Garland).
The culture war works both ways. Until someone reins in the provocation culture the outrage will continue.
Can anyone recommend a good book on the period before the American Civil War? Not the war itself, just the wind up. I'd also be interested in something similar but for the Yugoslav wars.
If you’re looking for a connection between the civil war and modern US politics, I recommend reading about what happened immediately after the war, rather than immediately before. That period is called the Reconstruction, and it failed miserably, in a way that deeply shaped the political landscape, and still does to this day.
The buildup to the war was about slavery. The aftermath of the war was about what we replaced slavery with... and it’s not pretty.
Not the Civil War or Yugoslav war, but you might find the Hardcore History podcast series "Countdown to Armageddon" enlightening. It's about World War I, including the run-up to the war. He has 20+ hours of material, and it's absolutely chilling.
If you're looking for an analogy to American politics as "second civil war", it won't help. But if you're looking for how two sides are willing to destroy themselves trying to destroy each other, it's amazing.
To stick with Dan Carlin, I think another applicable episode is Prophets of Doom, detailing the story of the city of Munster during the German Wars of Religion. Populism, charismatic leaders, conflict of neighbor against neighbor. The current situation has more of the feel of a religious schism to me than something like the Civil War, which was a largely regional division.
Off the top of my head, "Balkan Ghosts" by Robert D Kaplan might fit the latter criteria. If you're willing to stay within the realm of the revolutionary but stray a bit further north, "The Magic Lantern: The Revolution of 1989 Witnessed in Warsaw, Budapest, Berlin, and Prague" by Timothy Garton Ash is good.
/r/AskHistorians' Book List might be cover pretty much anything else:
To me, the interesting period is the end of the Roman Republic. I see parallels between the Gracchi and FDR (ignoring the rules about how long to stay in office) and the Kennedys (two brothers, both holding high office, both on the side of helping the common people, both assassinated). I see similarities between the current day and the civil war between Marius and Sulla. (And the wonderful difference - neither side is killing hundreds of the other side's people in the streets - at least, not yet.)
But from the civil war to Julius Caesar was only 30 years...
If you want a more personal book around slaves and slave-holders, which may be best since it seems one of the large problems of today is a general lack of theory of mind, I'd recommend Genovese's Roll, Jordan, Roll.
American culture seems to have become deeply intolerant of differences of opinion. Everything is now a scorched-earth, winner takes all battle, with no attempt at compromise or de-escalation. Everyone is a combatant, every word and action is seized upon to be weaponised. I’m not talking about the debacle currently unfolding in the senate here either, I mean the entire atmosphere is unbelievably toxic and has been for some time, and on both sides.
Americans are actively dehumanising each other. Everyone needs to calm down and stop hating or this is going to end very badly.
Those studies have generally shown liberals to be only somewhat less tolerant, as an aggregate. Most liberals are still tolerant, as are most conservatives.
What is intolerance anyway? It's not believing that a certain behavior is wrong. That's not intolerance. Intolerance is shouting people down because you don't agree with them or creating a hostile environment for opposing viewpoints. That's a behavior that reminds me of one side much more than the other.
I'm not putting blame here. One side just takes politics more seriously, for now.
You just called out one side as worse and then try to claim you're not putting blame? That's not really believeable.
If we're just throwing out reasons too, then how about how the Republican party decided to not compromise on anything anymore after Obama was elected? When one side refuses to compromise on anything, the other side can only lose by attempting to compromise. This situation is the only possible result from turning politics into a verbal form of total war
I've been flagged four times now for correcting the person I responded to on who is acting intolerant. That's an example of intolerance. Liberals are very intolerant, as the studies show.
> You just called out one side as worse and then try to claim you're not putting blame?
I said one side takes politics more seriously, that's what I said. But sure, if you believe in democracy then their behavior isn't exactly conducive to a well functioning democracy, now is it?
> When one side refuses to compromise on anything
That's hilarious. The republican party is the democratic party, just 10 years behind. It compromises on everything. The beautiful Republican party features the likes of marxists turned neocons because they took an interest in Israel (or so Wikipedia says).
>Here’s John Boehner, the likely speaker if Republicans take the House, offering his plans for Obama’s agenda: “We're going to do everything — and I mean everything we can do — to kill it, stop it, slow it down, whatever we can.”
It was a public and documented plan by the Republican party to not compromise on a single issue with the Obama administration. You're evidence that liberals are less tolerant is also a study of a single college campus. Bring some more evidence if you are going to make claims that have gone against the past 10 years of public discourse
"Rift" is the name of a hardware device from Facebook. At first I was confused about how on Earth Kavanaugh hearing was responsible for breaking open Oculus Rifts.
Rifts breaks because a reporter wants it to be real so it can be reported, magnifying the response from some extremely vocal employees, and ignoring the rest
When the senate majority leader is speaking on the floor of the senate and complains about Americans using their constitutional rights to free assembly and ability to petition their representatives, then frankly, our Republic has jumped the shark. It's over. Forget pretending any of this is working, because it's obviously not. The only question is how it will crumble from here.
Because we wouldn't even be at this point if it hadn't been for that same majority leader pocketing the nomination of another candidate during the previous administration, with no precedent or legal basis, and with no repercussions or ramifications. We have a majority in the senate that is ruling without regard for law or the voice of the people.
By confirming Kavanaugh, Senate Republicans are elevating a person that has committed repeated acts of perjury in sworn testimony to the highest court in the land[1].
He stands accused of sexual assault, and instead of fully reviewing the facts and allowing a third party to investigate every lead, Republicans in the White House have tied the FBI's hands[2]. Worse, they've done this and have chosen to mislead the American public into believing that they are not doing this[3].
I don't think this is the typical "gen blah is lazy/entitled". This is a specific description of how young people today want to "bring their whole selves to work". As far as I know, this claim was never made about prior generations.
Full disclosure, I am on the old side of the millenial generation, though I have never identified as a millenial. To me, I'm Gen Y: born in the early 80s, and I remember life before personal computers were common.
I’m same age as you, and all my peers are grumpy-“I don’t care what demographers day, I’m not a millennial!” millennials too ;)
We didn’t have computers as kids, but we came of age when technology was transforming the world. We think and live in terms of technology in a way that is starkly different from the generations before us, and after us. We’re millennials.
And the conservative underbelly of SV once again peeks out from beneath its plaid flannel facade. Tuck it back in there, Zuck, and all will be fine again for a little while longer! This is another byproduct of the startup lottery culture: we idolize the people who made it big, ignoring the realities of classism in the fight to the top.
I am thankful for the rift opening and the employee's pushing back against the usual tactics. (You don't have to work here; don't push your personal political agenda's into the company and make them front stage)
It's a way to dismiss a person in the worst way; saying your opinion doesn't matter.
> You don't have to work here; don't push your personal political agenda's into the company and make them front stage
Well, that used to be the case. When Facebook employees become as strongly opposed to the shady, borderline criminal, activities of their employer that they themselves (literally) enable through the code they write, then just maybe I'll be inclined to be more sympathetic to their other grievances.
This is about as far removed as I can possibly take myself from casting value judgement in one direction or another wrt Kavanaugh and the allegations against him but there's something weird in the air when one can't even be seen in the same vicinity as someone accused of {thing_goes_here} without someome somewhere connecting all sorts of dots that have no business being connected and being one reflexive twitch away from having their character assassinated in the worst possible ways.