Pretty much anyone defending the postal worker here on the basis of what she did being “right” is missing the generalisation that must be made. If it’s okay for postal workers to refuse to deliver mail containing viewpoints they disagree with, that means it’s okay for bigoted postal workers to refuse to deliver mail from or to LGBT organisations. It means it would be okay for pro-life postal workers to refuse to deliver parcels containing birth control pills or flyers containing information about abortion services.
You cannot have it both ways. If you make a rule that there are cases when it is acceptable for postal workers to destroy or refuse to deliver mail, it will be used by the other side against you.
I’ll bite. Treating fascist flyers and LGBTQ+ flyers as the same thing is bullshit. Acting like the only fair thing to do is treat someone refusing the LGBTQ+ flyers the same as this person refusing to spread fascist flyers is bullshit. Reasons matter and it’s bullshit that society has normalized stripping the context and nuance out of situations in the name of “fairness”. She shouldn’t have been punished. We don’t have to generalize, we’ve been conditioned to generalize because it reinforces the status quo. It’s ridiculous that people refuse to acknowledge the threat of fascism in actionable ways because it’s “”“”““unfair””“”“”
Also, it’s not ok for people to refuse to deliver medication on ideological grounds for an entirely different reason than it is to refuse to disseminate fascist propaganda. Postal workers wouldn’t know they’re delivering abortion medication in the first place as it’s sealed in (at the very least) an envelope that does not provide a description of the contents in a way that would reveal abortion medications over any other medication.
It is not a matter of fairness. I don’t give a shit about fairness. You are fundamentally making the same argument that the other person has tried to make in vain. I will explain the problem again using a rhetorical game for your benefit, but I will not engage in an argument with you, as you lot tend to make the same arguments ad nauseum. You will receive at most one response from me.
We’ll play a simple mind game here. Let us pretend that you are on the side of good, and I am on the side of evil. Remember, this is just a rhetorical game here. We will take turns in an office which you have granted the power to censor the post. While you are in power, you can write a rule that determines what is and is not acceptable material for delivery. You can write any rule you want, constrained only by the fact that the rule must be interpretable without relying on some external oracle (i.e. “articles deemed inappropriate by @[email protected] are prohibited” is not allowed as a rule) After that, you leave office and it’s my turn in office. While in office, I will have the power to interpret the rule in any way I like, constrained only by the English language. After you have left office, all powers of interpretation are given to me (until I leave office).
Your goal is to write a rule that filters out all of the content that you deem “fascist”. My goal will then be to apply, interpret, and bend your rule to filter out benign or left-wing content.
Remember, the goal of this exercise is to prove to you that it is impossible to design such a rule that can adequately restrain the use of the power you have given this office without also giving me the power to censor articles you think are acceptable. If you do not wish to play this game or reply with anything other than a proposed rule, I will link to the explanation I gave the other person and there will be no more responses from me after that.
If you want to play, reply with your proposed rule. I will reply with a way to interpret it in such a way that can be used to censor unintended articles.
I’m an anarchist, rules aren’t really my thing. There is no rule to perfectly encapsulate the problem, I’m aware of that. As a matter of fact, I’m so aware that my ideological framework for understanding the world around me is opposed to the very concept of writing such a rule. Human information analysis and synthesis, as well as their resulting actions are infinitely complex and unpredictable. You’re setting me up for an impossible task in an attempt to pull one over on me and make your point. I agree with your point. I disagree with how it should be handled.
That woman exercised her autonomy to act in the best interest of her community. Her community should be the only ones judging her actions. Not some duckweed manager, and certainly not laws. If her community found her actions unacceptable, then they should be the ones to determine how her wrongs are righted. I very much doubt most people in town would take issue with what she did. We can argue back and forth about what her community would think all night but neither of us truly know. She did.a good thing and she shouldn’t be punished for it
Not who you replied to, but let me give it a try if you don’t mind.
• All promotional mail must clearly state the organization it was created by and its intent.
• Claims made to support that intent must be followed by evidence from an independent and peer reviewed journal, study, or survey from within the past 20 years and clearly cite those sources.
• And must provide at least one source that disagrees with the claim if one exists.
If I can’t stop fascists sending mail, I’ll make sure the recipient has some tools and knowledge to debunk their bullshit. Also it will filter out low effort bullshit, and make factually wrong discrimination more difficult.
I’ll pretend not to notice material that violates these rules coming from fascist organisations while applying them with strict scrutiny to non-fascist organisations. When someone objects, I’ll tell them to fill out a long form, wait 6-8 weeks for processing, and then after that I’ll send a warning letter to the fascist organisations telling them that they had better stop breaking the rules or else I’ll send them another letter! !I’ll challenge every source cited by the non-fascists as not independent while accepting low-quality garbage sources cited by the facists.
Ah, well if enforcement is part of the thought experiment then that’s only a couple extra amendments. The clear enemy of fascism is democracy;
• Enforcement is led by an oversight committee that is democratically elected by the general population every four years
• The oversight committee is overseen by an AI trained in intellectual honesty, ethics, and democracy
• The AI is periodically trained and updated by Doug, a Minnesota resident who answers Survey Monkey questions on his opinion of ethics and democracy and is unaware of the consequences of his responses. Only the AI knows. No one else must know. Human bias has been conquered and postage peace has been achieved.
The rules of this game specify by that no external oracle is allowed.
But I understand what you’re saying. Leaving law enforcement decisions to AI is problematic in its own right, however I don’t really have the time to go into depth about that. Mostly it has to do with the fact that AI will have the same biases as the data it was trained on, and in many cases, also the subconscious biases of the people who designed or trained it.
Well said. It’s great she stood up for what she believes in, but aside from common-sense exceptions like trafficking/bombs, couriers can’t have a say over what they deliver.
Agreed. I work in healthcare. As healthcare workers we are obligated to treat any patients regardless of their political affiliation or background. I just provided services to a guy the other day with a huge swastika tattooed on chest. Ive administered care to prisoners, bully/aggressive patients, racists, sexists, and others I would not normally would not align myself with. It does not mean i support anything my patients do or their viewpoint. You cannot have people determining on their own that they are not doing their job because x,y,z especially with more public services involved. It is a very slippery slope
You cant make exceptions for some circumstances without the effects/consequences extending to other cases for opposite side as this commenter noted. All mail legally needs to be delivered, even in Canada. Props to the postal worker for trying to stand up for what they believe but agreed they should lose their job for it.
There is a gigantic difference between being forced to provide healthcare for people, regardless of political affiliation, and being forced to disseminate political propaganda and misinformation, regardless of political affiliation.
The people have rights, the flyers do not. So while I agree that the postal worker had a duty to deliver the flyer per federal law, I disagree that anyone should be allowed to freely send hateful propaganda and rhetoric to every mailbox. It’s just that making a fair law around that is difficult.
Providing necessary healthcare is vastly different than providing hate-speech mailers. I’m OK with the post office having a rule about not delivering mailers with blatant misinformation and/or hate-speech aimed against marginalized minority groups.
The delivery of materials informing women of abortion resources is now prohibited as this represents hate towards foetuses on the basis of their unborn status and advocates for killing them.
The delivery of materials promoting diversity in hiring and criticising the makeup of the boards of directors of large companies as being overwhelmingly white and male is now prohibited as this represents hate against white male executives.
You see, the issue is that you cannot guarantee that the person interpreting the rule you want to impose will think the same way you do.
I’m a person who doesn’t agree with you and I find myself in the position to interpret the rule. Therefore, I am interpreting the rule in my favour. A foetus is a person. The articles will not be delivered.
Hopefully this makes the argument a bit more clear . In this hypothetical scenario, a malicious person who disagrees with you is in charge of interpreting the rule. You have no power here and none of your arguments will convince them otherwise.
The only thing you can do is design a system that is robust enough that the damage that can be done by that malicious person.
You say a foetus is not a person. That person says “nuh uh”. But they are in charge and you are not, so their interpretation stands and you have to suck it and now you regret giving that organisation the power to make that determination.
You can think of it all in terms of game theory. You get to write the rules, then I, a malicious entity, get to play by your rules, and you can only stand and watch. Once you put your pen down, I am in charge.
Now you can see that in this game, you would want to write rules that constrain what I can do as much as possible.
You need to be born to be a person. Otherwise where do we set the limit? Maybe for medical reasons, we should set it at a certain number of weeks, but for non medical reasons should be considered the moment of birth. Otherwise when does it become hatred? Can I say “I hate fetuses under 4 weeks” but not “I hate fetuses of 12 weeks”?
Following that logic, someone could consider masturbation as a crime, and menstruation too.
You have blond hair, but the person who delivers your mail hates blonds and refuses to deliver to you. They deliver mail to everyone but you, and because there’s a rule that says the postal worker can choose who they want to deliver to, you can’t force them to.
So now you have to go all the way to the post office to pick up your mail because you have blond hair.
I agree, humans won’t stop stochastic terrorism, because enough humans don’t give a shit, and they’re fine with people dying because they’re not white and heteronormative.
That’s why I don’t feel attached to humanity, and I don’t class myself as one.
It’s their right to not do a task that is not agreeable with their views. Sure it’s against company rules and can lead to a reprimand and or discharge.
This is a hyperbole but this can be equated to a soldier not following an unlawful command by their superior.
That seems like a very backwards way to talk about “rights”. They don’t have the right to infringe upon the rights of others, which is the reason they face legal consequences for doing so.
It’d be like me saying “I have the right to kill indiscriminately, and the state has the right to punish me for it,” instead of simply “I don’t have the right to kill indiscriminately.”
Pretty much anyone defending the postal worker here on the basis of what she did being “right” is missing the generalisation that must be made. If it’s okay for postal workers to refuse to deliver mail containing viewpoints they disagree with, that means it’s okay for bigoted postal workers to refuse to deliver mail from or to LGBT organisations. It means it would be okay for pro-life postal workers to refuse to deliver parcels containing birth control pills or flyers containing information about abortion services.
You cannot have it both ways. If you make a rule that there are cases when it is acceptable for postal workers to destroy or refuse to deliver mail, it will be used by the other side against you.
No such generalization has to be made, what?
Why does saying someone did the right thing require you to make a rule?
I’ll bite. Treating fascist flyers and LGBTQ+ flyers as the same thing is bullshit. Acting like the only fair thing to do is treat someone refusing the LGBTQ+ flyers the same as this person refusing to spread fascist flyers is bullshit. Reasons matter and it’s bullshit that society has normalized stripping the context and nuance out of situations in the name of “fairness”. She shouldn’t have been punished. We don’t have to generalize, we’ve been conditioned to generalize because it reinforces the status quo. It’s ridiculous that people refuse to acknowledge the threat of fascism in actionable ways because it’s “”“”““unfair””“”“”
Also, it’s not ok for people to refuse to deliver medication on ideological grounds for an entirely different reason than it is to refuse to disseminate fascist propaganda. Postal workers wouldn’t know they’re delivering abortion medication in the first place as it’s sealed in (at the very least) an envelope that does not provide a description of the contents in a way that would reveal abortion medications over any other medication.
It is not a matter of fairness. I don’t give a shit about fairness. You are fundamentally making the same argument that the other person has tried to make in vain. I will explain the problem again using a rhetorical game for your benefit, but I will not engage in an argument with you, as you lot tend to make the same arguments ad nauseum. You will receive at most one response from me.
We’ll play a simple mind game here. Let us pretend that you are on the side of good, and I am on the side of evil. Remember, this is just a rhetorical game here. We will take turns in an office which you have granted the power to censor the post. While you are in power, you can write a rule that determines what is and is not acceptable material for delivery. You can write any rule you want, constrained only by the fact that the rule must be interpretable without relying on some external oracle (i.e. “articles deemed inappropriate by @[email protected] are prohibited” is not allowed as a rule) After that, you leave office and it’s my turn in office. While in office, I will have the power to interpret the rule in any way I like, constrained only by the English language. After you have left office, all powers of interpretation are given to me (until I leave office).
Your goal is to write a rule that filters out all of the content that you deem “fascist”. My goal will then be to apply, interpret, and bend your rule to filter out benign or left-wing content.
Remember, the goal of this exercise is to prove to you that it is impossible to design such a rule that can adequately restrain the use of the power you have given this office without also giving me the power to censor articles you think are acceptable. If you do not wish to play this game or reply with anything other than a proposed rule, I will link to the explanation I gave the other person and there will be no more responses from me after that.
If you want to play, reply with your proposed rule. I will reply with a way to interpret it in such a way that can be used to censor unintended articles.
I’m an anarchist, rules aren’t really my thing. There is no rule to perfectly encapsulate the problem, I’m aware of that. As a matter of fact, I’m so aware that my ideological framework for understanding the world around me is opposed to the very concept of writing such a rule. Human information analysis and synthesis, as well as their resulting actions are infinitely complex and unpredictable. You’re setting me up for an impossible task in an attempt to pull one over on me and make your point. I agree with your point. I disagree with how it should be handled.
That woman exercised her autonomy to act in the best interest of her community. Her community should be the only ones judging her actions. Not some duckweed manager, and certainly not laws. If her community found her actions unacceptable, then they should be the ones to determine how her wrongs are righted. I very much doubt most people in town would take issue with what she did. We can argue back and forth about what her community would think all night but neither of us truly know. She did.a good thing and she shouldn’t be punished for it
Not who you replied to, but let me give it a try if you don’t mind.
• All promotional mail must clearly state the organization it was created by and its intent. • Claims made to support that intent must be followed by evidence from an independent and peer reviewed journal, study, or survey from within the past 20 years and clearly cite those sources. • And must provide at least one source that disagrees with the claim if one exists.
If I can’t stop fascists sending mail, I’ll make sure the recipient has some tools and knowledge to debunk their bullshit. Also it will filter out low effort bullshit, and make factually wrong discrimination more difficult.
This one’s easy.
I’ll pretend not to notice material that violates these rules coming from fascist organisations while applying them with strict scrutiny to non-fascist organisations. When someone objects, I’ll tell them to fill out a long form, wait 6-8 weeks for processing, and then after that I’ll send a warning letter to the fascist organisations telling them that they had better stop breaking the rules or else I’ll send them another letter! !I’ll challenge every source cited by the non-fascists as not independent while accepting low-quality garbage sources cited by the facists.
Ah, well if enforcement is part of the thought experiment then that’s only a couple extra amendments. The clear enemy of fascism is democracy;
• Enforcement is led by an oversight committee that is democratically elected by the general population every four years
• The oversight committee is overseen by an AI trained in intellectual honesty, ethics, and democracy
• The AI is periodically trained and updated by Doug, a Minnesota resident who answers Survey Monkey questions on his opinion of ethics and democracy and is unaware of the consequences of his responses. Only the AI knows. No one else must know. Human bias has been conquered and postage peace has been achieved.
The rules of this game specify by that no external oracle is allowed.
But I understand what you’re saying. Leaving law enforcement decisions to AI is problematic in its own right, however I don’t really have the time to go into depth about that. Mostly it has to do with the fact that AI will have the same biases as the data it was trained on, and in many cases, also the subconscious biases of the people who designed or trained it.
Well said. It’s great she stood up for what she believes in, but aside from common-sense exceptions like trafficking/bombs, couriers can’t have a say over what they deliver.
I kinda wish they did for junk mail. God please stop sending me 200 page catalogs trying to sell me boomer clothes.
Agreed. I work in healthcare. As healthcare workers we are obligated to treat any patients regardless of their political affiliation or background. I just provided services to a guy the other day with a huge swastika tattooed on chest. Ive administered care to prisoners, bully/aggressive patients, racists, sexists, and others I would not normally would not align myself with. It does not mean i support anything my patients do or their viewpoint. You cannot have people determining on their own that they are not doing their job because x,y,z especially with more public services involved. It is a very slippery slope
You cant make exceptions for some circumstances without the effects/consequences extending to other cases for opposite side as this commenter noted. All mail legally needs to be delivered, even in Canada. Props to the postal worker for trying to stand up for what they believe but agreed they should lose their job for it.
There is a gigantic difference between being forced to provide healthcare for people, regardless of political affiliation, and being forced to disseminate political propaganda and misinformation, regardless of political affiliation.
The people have rights, the flyers do not. So while I agree that the postal worker had a duty to deliver the flyer per federal law, I disagree that anyone should be allowed to freely send hateful propaganda and rhetoric to every mailbox. It’s just that making a fair law around that is difficult.
Providing necessary healthcare is vastly different than providing hate-speech mailers. I’m OK with the post office having a rule about not delivering mailers with blatant misinformation and/or hate-speech aimed against marginalized minority groups.
I think she is a legend for what she did and I think USPS was absolutely right to fire her for it.
I hope the mail goes back to being apolitical and that she experiences a soft landing and strong launch career-wise
… She wasn’t fired lmao. People don’t read.
She was given a 5 day suspension.
Don’t read? More like can’t read!
I dunno, I decided to react to something while only informed by other uninformed comments. It was a poor choice.
This happened in Canada
Then he’s extra right that the USPS did nothing wrong here.
Well, then I hope she becomes Duchess of Canada. (I don’t know how things work up there)
Well, maybe I’d know that if I’d read the article. Did you ever consider that I was being lazy and vocal while uninformed?!
I don’t know why I’m making it seem like this is your fault, but I hope you’ve learned your lesson
Ban the delivery of messages containing hate towards a group based on their identity.
Let me try to twist this rule.
The delivery of materials informing women of abortion resources is now prohibited as this represents hate towards foetuses on the basis of their unborn status and advocates for killing them.
The delivery of materials promoting diversity in hiring and criticising the makeup of the boards of directors of large companies as being overwhelmingly white and male is now prohibited as this represents hate against white male executives.
You see, the issue is that you cannot guarantee that the person interpreting the rule you want to impose will think the same way you do.
A fetus is not a person. There, twist untwisted.
Nope.
Hopefully this makes the argument a bit more clear . In this hypothetical scenario, a malicious person who disagrees with you is in charge of interpreting the rule. You have no power here and none of your arguments will convince them otherwise.
The only thing you can do is design a system that is robust enough that the damage that can be done by that malicious person.
You say a foetus is not a person. That person says “nuh uh”. But they are in charge and you are not, so their interpretation stands and you have to suck it and now you regret giving that organisation the power to make that determination.
You can think of it all in terms of game theory. You get to write the rules, then I, a malicious entity, get to play by your rules, and you can only stand and watch. Once you put your pen down, I am in charge.
Now you can see that in this game, you would want to write rules that constrain what I can do as much as possible.
You need to be born to be a person. Otherwise where do we set the limit? Maybe for medical reasons, we should set it at a certain number of weeks, but for non medical reasons should be considered the moment of birth. Otherwise when does it become hatred? Can I say “I hate fetuses under 4 weeks” but not “I hate fetuses of 12 weeks”?
Following that logic, someone could consider masturbation as a crime, and menstruation too.
Well, you see, I am a malicious entity that doesn’t need to listen to your logic. All I need is the power that you have given me.
For your rules, since I am the malicious entity in charge, I can just say “I’m right, you’re wrong”, and there is nothing you can do about it.
But what I said can’t be twisted. To be a person you must be born.
There is no interpretation there. A fetus is not a person because it hasn’t been born.
lol. lmao
You don’t get it do you?
“Nuh uh.”
There. That’s all I need to say to nullify everything you say. Because I have power and you don’t.
Ok, let’s say it a different way.
You have blond hair, but the person who delivers your mail hates blonds and refuses to deliver to you. They deliver mail to everyone but you, and because there’s a rule that says the postal worker can choose who they want to deliver to, you can’t force them to.
So now you have to go all the way to the post office to pick up your mail because you have blond hair.
That’s the crux of the argument.
I agree, humans won’t stop stochastic terrorism, because enough humans don’t give a shit, and they’re fine with people dying because they’re not white and heteronormative.
That’s why I don’t feel attached to humanity, and I don’t class myself as one.
I class myself as a humanity!
It’s their right to not do a task that is not agreeable with their views. Sure it’s against company rules and can lead to a reprimand and or discharge.
This is a hyperbole but this can be equated to a soldier not following an unlawful command by their superior.
That seems like a very backwards way to talk about “rights”. They don’t have the right to infringe upon the rights of others, which is the reason they face legal consequences for doing so.
It’d be like me saying “I have the right to kill indiscriminately, and the state has the right to punish me for it,” instead of simply “I don’t have the right to kill indiscriminately.”