this post was submitted on 20 Sep 2024

90 points (95.9% liked)

News

22890 readers

3641 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil

Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.

2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.

Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.

3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.

Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.

4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.

Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.

5. Only recent news is allowed.

Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.

6. All posts must be news articles.

No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.

7. No duplicate posts.

If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.

8. Misinformation is prohibited.

Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.

9. No link shorteners.

The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.

10. Don't copy entire article in your post body

For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

rjc@lemmy.world

Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

Blackbeard@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

jeffw@lemmy.world

Postal worker parent of trans kid refused to deliver hateful flyers. She's being punished. (www.lgbtqnation.com)

submitted 5 hours ago by jeffw@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

36 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 36 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 49 points 3 hours ago (4 children)

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.

[–] thefartographer@lemm.ee 21 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

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

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 8 points 2 hours ago

This happened in Canada

[–] Samvega@lemmy.blahaj.zone 14 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

You cannot have it both ways.

Ban the delivery of messages containing hate towards a group based on their identity.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 10 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

A fetus is not a person. There, twist untwisted.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 3 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago) (1 children)

Nope.

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.

[–] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place 1 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 4 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ASDraptor@lemmy.autism.place -2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] girlfreddy@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 hour ago

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.

[–] Elextra@literature.cafe 0 points 44 minutes ago

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.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 0 points 2 hours ago

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.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 30 points 4 hours ago (3 children)

As terrible as the flyers are, personal political and religious beliefs should not be enforced in any way at a workplace.

Functionally this is similar to that county clerk that refused to issue marriage certificates to same sex couples. Can't be supportive of one and not the other without being hypocritical.

[–] Evkob@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 hours ago

Personally, I think refraining from distributing genocidal propaganda is pretty functionally dissimilar to being a bigot.

I don't want to come off as abrasive and I don't want to assume any ill-intent on your part, but it's fucking frustrating hearing takes like this as a trans person. Equating the refusal to participate in a hateful disinformation campaign to refusing to marry a gay couple is deifying the liberal concepts of law & order at the expense of human decency. It is not hypocrisy to support anti-fascist actions whilst denouncing fascist actions, even if they express those actions in a similar fashion. For example, I largely support Just Stop Oil's disruptive protests, whereas I would be disgusted if fascists defaced artworks by spray-painting swastikas all over. Is that hypocritical?

Again, sorry if I come on strongly in this comment, my frustrations are definitely from society at large rather than your comment, but having your right to exist being framed as a "political belief" is frankly exhausting.

[–] stalfoss@lemm.ee 3 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

That’s like saying if you support gay rights protestors, you have to also support nazi protestors, or you’re being hypocritical. You’re looking at things on the wrong axis.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago)

Yeah that's exactly correct. Protestors and counter protestors both have a right to express their views, regardless of what I think of those views. As long as they don't violate any laws in the process. That is literally one of the pillars the US is built on for instance. I don't have to agree with you to defend your right to say those things I disagree with. The right to that freedom of expression is literally the 1st Amendment in the US.

I don't know what the limits are on speech in Canada, but they're likely similar, just not as extremely biased towards protection. The US defends too much honestly.

That doesn't mean that your opinions and expressions are immune from controversy or disagreement. And speech is limited in certain circumstances, like direct threats. That's not what's happening here though.

[–] Funky_Beak@lemmy.sdf.org -1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

It's why I would argue that it's a duty of care not to distribute as it spreads hate and hurt in the community and workplace. Probably wouldn't fly in the US though.

[–] anonymous111@lemmy.world 3 points 1 hour ago

Who decides what is hurtful though?

If it is the person delivering the leaflets then a Nazi postal worker can decide not to deliver postal votes as they see democracy as hurtful to their cause.

[–] jeffw@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago (4 children)

I was thinking more about the “can’t force me to make a cake for a gay wedding” thing

[–] breetai@lemmy.world 6 points 4 hours ago

Canada isn’t under the jurisdiction of American law.

[–] M500@lemmy.ml 3 points 3 hours ago

As others have said it’s a government position and it’s delivering mail. I’m not sure if Canadian law, but in think that’s a pretty severe crime in the US.

What if the person didn’t want to deliver medicine because they believed that god will heal everything?

While the mail is hateful, it needs to be delivered.

Also consider that someone paid for the flyers and paid to have them mailed. So this guy is effectively robbing them of two different transactions.

To be clear, I don’t support the flyers in any way, but what the guy did was wrong.

[–] halcyoncmdr@lemmy.world 4 points 4 hours ago

That one too. Although that was a private business, not a governmental organization.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

The postal worker in question doesn't own Canada Post.

[–] Late2TheParty@lemmy.world 6 points 5 hours ago

What have we become? Like, maybe we should be lifting our citizens up and not denigrating them? Maybe. I'm not with the government anymore. What do I know?

[–] gedaliyah@lemmy.world 3 points 4 hours ago (1 children)

Freedom only applies to cakes apparently

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 9 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

Canada Post is legally obligated to deliver whatever meets the postal regulations and has proper postage affixed to it.

[–] superkret@feddit.org 8 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

Yes, and the decision about what they deliver isn't up to the delivery driver.

[–] DmMacniel@feddit.org 2 points 2 hours ago (1 children)

But it's up to the delivery driver to refuse it. Canada Post certainly has more than one deliverer, right?

[–] superkret@feddit.org 3 points 2 hours ago

Any worker can refuse any task, of course.
They'll just have to be prepared to lose their job.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

She should have taken them and deliver straight to rubbish bin.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 5 points 3 hours ago* (last edited 3 hours ago) (1 children)

I don't believe that the Government being able to destroy mail containing viewpoints it deems objectionable is a power they should have.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 4 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

There should be no tolerance for the enemy of tolerance.

[–] NateNate60@lemmy.world 6 points 2 hours ago* (last edited 2 hours ago)

I don't disagree with this statement.

My issue with the policy proposal that follows is that the people in charge of determining what is intolerant will not necessarily be on your side.

And that's where trouble brews. This rule only works when good, knowledgeable, and tolerant people are in charge of administering it. And God knows that this does not always describe the people actually in charge

[–] superkret@feddit.org 1 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

That's not what the word tolerance means, at all.

[–] FelixCress@lemmy.world 2 points 3 hours ago

Yeah? In what way?