Google is “a microcosm of America" in what it allows--or rather disallows. After public pressure, the company fired an employee because of expressing his view on a open company forum that biology could have an effect on why there are more men coders than women. Now the tech giant allows moderators to remove employees from open forums, and this will include any views that biology is related to sex. They can talk about sexual expression on these company forums and other political issues, but they cannot suggest that biology is related to sex. That would be grounds for firing--consider James Demore.
Biology has no relation to sex--that's the only claim tolerated so that bias is prevented. Our society is afraid of limiting identity, so it imposes these restrictions. It's not that some new evidence or proof exists, but the heart of the government--"we the people"--has come to sympathize with new causes that defy traditional mores [and epistemology].
Everyone needs to acknowledge it is inappropriately offensive to suggest that sex is in any way connected to or limited by biology. Company clubs routinely meet to discuss religious texts, and multiple texts suggest biology has to do with marriage and/or sex. What are your options? You can disagree with the religious text. But if you agree, there are legal grounds for your dismissal, right? All employees [in these companies] who do not follow federal standards will be weeded out by this system.
Really, the system seems compassionate and protective and perhaps this is because individual feelings are protected [the right to self-determinism I think the UN is calling it] by this relativism. At the end of the day, this new system removes any objective or transcendent basis for how we relate to others--at least with regards to sex--and this allows for more rapid societal change. The society takes the role of shaping itself, and becomes it's own authority, contra conservative views of God, biology, etc. Properly, such a system is called socialism--the society defines everything.
But socialism cannot elevate everyone to be an authority, since there're are contradictions in points of view. So socialism has to be the power of some people over others, preferably for their good. But contradictions--inherent to relativistic morality--are sure to still appear, and that's when I think things will really get bad. I doubt those shouting down free speech--a somewhat related topic--will non-violently allow their freedoms to be taken, even though people with a spiritual worldview will have more restraint. Those who then try to restore democracy may lack the virtue and grace required to birth it.
In an age of globalism, the chaotic swirl of intermingling cultures should leave us looking for broad cultural idea trends and systems--as well as their consequences. The right to self determinism manifests itself one way in our country, but it's an international movement. It may be that the significance of the present cultural moment can only be directly apprehended by supercomputers, daemons, and God. But we have a responsibility to consider what will occur when the pattern observed at Google takes the place of Highest power in the land. Please consider.
Afterthoughts: One Google employee discussion reportedly resulted in a commitment to find a way to undermine religious communities with regards to their view on transgenderism, so Google discussion may be related to creation of California AB2943. The bill's first reference in Section II pits transcendent "telic" values against "sexual and affectional needs and desires"--saying that the only valid way of resolving any tension is by denying the transcendent values. (See Pacific Justice letter on AB2943 for analysis.) Religious conservatives are identified as those who would cause this tension by supporting transcendent values. There's some pragmatic genius apparent by appending this undermining of religious values to a consumer fraud bill.
Afterthought: Companies need to respond to legal threats, but how do they prevent themselves from being bullied by mass groupthink with inconsistent morals?
No comments:
Post a Comment