At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated • Hacker News Board

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#191

Post by jcranmer » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:16 PM UTC

rainbowmverse wrote: post #163

jcranmer wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except sometimes it's public information. Brendan Eich was pilloried not for telling people how he voted, but for having made a contribution to an unpopular cause several years past.

There's no value in dredging this back up. People are pretty set in their opinions on it. You're not going to be convined that what he did was worse than just having an opinion. No one on the other side will be convinced donating to a campaign of hate against them is harmless. You already see why posting that was a bad idea because you're primed to argue, even though you know it won't go anywhere.

The irony in the furor over Brendan Eich is that it is well out of proportion. I worked with Mozilla long enough to recall the time when a community engagement manager soliticed calls for donations to an anti-gay-marriage organization on his blog, which was replicated to Planet Mozilla. There were no calls to boycott Mozilla or to fire said person for that act.

I bring it up because the outrage is clearly so manufactured, not because I'm "primed to argue, even though I know it won't go anywhere."

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#192

Post by diego_moita » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

feedjoelpie wrote: post #176

diego_moita wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you're 200% right. But, unfortunately, the irony is that the same mechanism that isolates conservatives on SV and liberals on oil companies is working here to isolate your good sense in Hacker News.

I can't believe we're suddenly having a moral crisis about business cultural politics... over the fact that a guy was fired for arguing in part that historically discriminated-against groups are underrepresented because of biological unfitness . Political business monocultures have been a thing since forever. Dial the clock back a little and you have bosses pressuring you to campaign for Nixon. Dial it forward again…

I see it more like instinct vs. reason. When reason fights instinct, the later usually wins.

We get surprised when groups that we expect to be sophisticated behave exactly like Polynesian/Amazonian tribes or chimpanzees in the Congo.

But, many times, civilization is just a varnish over bestiality, a make-up on a pig. Deep down we react like tribes that repress behavior that looks threatening to our group cohesion.

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#193

Post by lkbm » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

plandis wrote: post #128

peoplewindow wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes Sure you are. You see someone vote for Trump and immediately assume it must be because they're an evil, ethically flawed person who inexplicably hates love, sunshine and puppies, whereas perhaps they mostly care about taxes. You even did it in this post. Your thinking is knee jerk and shallow, and it's people like you that are causin…

How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough to not vote for him.

I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was actually murder of babies, I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and probably not hugely more effective.)

Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose and voting for the candidate who didn't work hard to create that situation. (Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement, but we're good at making things worse.)

I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was more disqualifying.

It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than saying sexist and racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects were "just talk".

There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option.

I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason for a lot of religious people.

I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means also not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#194

Post by rufus_2 » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

CalChris wrote: post #150

peoplewindow wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import taxes Sure you are. You see someone vote for Trump and immediately assume it must be because they're an evil, ethically flawed person who inexplicably hates love, sunshine and puppies, whereas perhaps they mostly care about taxes. You even did it in this post. Your thinking is knee jerk and shallow, and it's people like you that are causin…

They're bringing drugs,' crime and are 'rapists'. knock the crap out of them …. I promise you, I will pay for the legal fees You didn't vote for Trump over the correct level of import taxes.

I voted for him because he told the truth about the massive problems with drugs, crime, and rape that we have in border states as well as his willingness to defend himself and his supporters from the violent Alt Left disruptors that plague his public events.

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#195

Post by namdnay » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:17 PM UTC

nwenzel wrote: post #61

tboyd47 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a reason why voting machines have curtains. If you resent people judging you for how you vote, just don't tell them.

Don't ask. Don't tell. It wasn't a great policy before. It's not great now. Hiding who you are to avoid ridicule doesn't solve the problem. If the majority opinion is safe to express, but your opinion isn't, then being forced to hide doesn't actually solve the problem. Even if you hide your views, you may get asked why you don't support the majority's viewpoints.

If sexual orientation were a matter of choice, DADT wouldn't have been as controversial

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#196

Post by te_chris » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

peoplewindow wrote: post #178

te_chris wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Go look at political conversation in the UK and you'll find large numbers of left wingers / liberals foaming at the mouth about how the government trying to balance its budget is the same thing as hating people, killing them" I see you've listened closely to them and engaged with their arguments.

You don't believe me, huh. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/may/15/recessions-h... "Recessions can hurt, but austerity kills" https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jun/20/engels... "The victims of Grenfell Tower didn’t just die. Austerity, outsourcing and deregulation killed them" https://www.theguardian.com/membership/commentisfree/2017/ap... "The cause of death that dare not speak its name: austeri…

I don't get it, you don't like these articles because you find the idea that govt. negligence can actually kill people who rely on the govt. offensive?

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#197

Post by taylodl » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

austenallred wrote: post #171

plandis wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). T…

I don't agree with those policies, but can you imagine any non-evil reason a rational person would hold those beliefs?

Fear. Fear of the other. Fear of a widening disparity between the haves and have-nots - and they're increasingly in the have-not category. Fear that their children won't be able to do as well or better than they did. Fear. And Donald Trump expertly capitalized on that fear while Hillary chose to ignore it. Trump won. I'm not convinced we progressives/liberals fully understand this because we're still ignoring this fear.

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#198

Post by DanielBMarkham » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

nxsynonym wrote: post #19

>>“Work is work, and not everything needs to be about politics,” he said. While he sees liberal colleagues who sit nearby don’t seemingly need to filter their comments, he’s decided it’s not worth engaging, adding “I don’t want to be known as that guy who wants to argue with everybody.” As someone who falls on the Liberal side of the spectrum, this bothers me more than almost anything else regarding modern day politi…

Some of my saddest friends, at least when it comes to expressing themselves politically, are my liberal friends who have beliefs just a bit outside the left-norm. Things like owning firearms, or support for free speech even when it's ugly.

These folks are shunned by both groups. One guy told me once he had friends of 20 years that wouldn't let him in the house when they found out he owned a gun.

But the question one asked that I keep getting back to is this: would the Civil Rights movement stand a chance today in the world many in the left wants to set up?

Another commenter mentioned being assaulted by a ROTC cadet for expressing liberal views. As bad as that is, I'm much more supportive of open fisticuffs, along with a jail sentence for whomever started it, than creating systems of political suppression that many major SV corps seem intent on doing. It doesn't get more fucked up and evil than that -- and I have no doubt in my mind that the people doing it are nice and well meaning. All the worse.

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#199

Post by saint_fiasco » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:18 PM UTC

AndrewDucker wrote: post #30

subru wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not reasonable. It's a vote, not justification to throw fists or anything in between, even.

A vote to treat people badly is _absolutely_ a good reason to be angry at someone. If you're voting to take away people's healthcare, or to discriminate against them based on who they love, or their gender, then of course they are angry!

Nobody can tell you what to feel, and it's unfair to expect you to not feel angry about stuff that is important to you.

But it's fair to expect that you won't get into a fistfight with someone just because they make you angry.

Re: At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

#200

Post by JSONwebtoken » Tue, Sep 05, 2017, 2:19 PM UTC

plandis wrote: post #153

austenallred wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I moved to San Francisco from a small, deeply red town. I'll just say this - I think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just economically). The leadership at the company was very reasonable, but the politically active folks terrified me, and didn't just think that those that held conservative viewpoints were mi…

In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). T…

Honestly, none of those things matter to me. I vote on the second amendment and fiscal policy. As a libertarian, I am an advocate for civil rights, clean energy, equality, and so forth. I care about those issues, but you can't be a moderate without making idealogical compromises.

Net neutrality was a disappointment, but myself and others in the tech community will learn to deal with the inconvenience.

The plight of illegal immigrants and the "religion of peace" has zero relevance to me, I simply don't care enough one way or the other to vote in favor of them.