Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 418 posts

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

#351

Post by Frondo »

austenallred wrote: post #322
cr0sh wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women... ...unless you have a different definition of what is considered "good". /much like christians claim "everything god does is good" - you know, like genocide via a flood...

I don't disagree that those comments were wretched (again, I didn't vote for Trump), and neither do the majority of the people I know that voted for him, but it seems entirely possible to me that someone would vote for him in spite of those comments, not because of them. Indeed, if you were to assume that every vote for a candidate is de facto support of everything they do/are, I don't think I ever could have voted f…

Yep. I have relatives who voted for him because, in their words, "look at the markets!! We're doing great!"

They really don't give a shit about anyone or anything but their investment holdings. Nothing but some numbers on an account.

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

#352

Post by pizza »

notyourday wrote: post #338
dbingham wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, to offer one clear example of harm, we have Nazis openly marching in the streets and arguing for racial cleansing of the US. As someone of Jewish decent, I find that pretty directly threatening. Given where those arguments have lead before -- the holocaust -- is allowing people to advocate for those viewpoints truly harmless?

> Well, to offer one clear example of harm, we have Nazis openly marching in the streets and arguing for racial cleansing of the US. As someone of Jewish decent, I find that pretty directly threatening. Could I maybe inquire why Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot and Che who wiped out a lot more people than Hitler and whose images ( especially Che ) show up quite prominently on T-shirts worn by people on the coasts do not trigger…

The key heuristic is the acceleration of murders over time. But the perception of foreign leaders has to do with the amount of insurance domestic interests are willing to pay to preserve the justification of their mandate.

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

#353

Post by oblib »

saint_fiasco wrote: post #212
oblib wrote: post #187

Good. I hope they stay isolated until they see some light or fade away. I moved right into the thick of them, 77% of my neighbors voted for Trump the "pussy grabber" who's had over 3000 lawsuits from small businesses trying to collect money on work they delivered, all just to spite "libtards" and after just a few years ago when they were yelling about how immoral "Gay Marriage" is and even voted for a State Constitut…

That's an interesting choice of metaphor. What is the point of yelling at a hurricane? In more concrete terms, do you expect that isolating them will make them see the light? Isn't engaging them and talking to them respectfully more likely to make them change their mind? I grant that hating and being angry is easier. But don't fool yourself and think that you are virtuous for doing so and that you should be emulated.

I never said I hated anyone and that is an interesting leap for you to make.

In real life terms I have been engaging them for more than 2 decades now. In fact, in no small part here, where I live, my pointing out to my neighbors that Jesus said "There is no marriage in heaven" was precisely what quieted them down after the Supreme Court made their decision on that case. They went to their bibles and asked their Baptist ministers to explain that and the only thing they could do was quiet down, but I was loudly called a "liar" one even accused me of being in cahoots with the Devil for pointing that out.

I've heard them yelling about their right to own guns for decades, and yelling about how "liberals" want to take them away from them, but they've had no problem with wanting to make laws against protesters and laws that require prayer in schools and laws about who can be married.

It takes a whole lot of talking to them and engaging them, but sitting silent isn't part of that unless you listen to them too. And I listen constantly because they seldom stop talking about what's pissing them off.

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

#354

Post by oblib »

oblib wrote: post #353
saint_fiasco wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting choice of metaphor. What is the point of yelling at a hurricane? In more concrete terms, do you expect that isolating them will make them see the light? Isn't engaging them and talking to them respectfully more likely to make them change their mind? I grant that hating and being angry is easier. But don't fool yourself and think that you are virtuous for doing so and that you should be emulated.

I never said I hated anyone and that is an interesting leap for you to make. In real life terms I have been engaging them for more than 2 decades now. In fact, in no small part here, where I live, my pointing out to my neighbors that Jesus said "There is no marriage in heaven" was precisely what quieted them down after the Supreme Court made their decision on that case. They went to their bibles and asked their Bapti…

And I'll add that in fairness I've had to "talk" with my "liberal" friends too. Just a few weeks ago they were all screaming about how we needed laws to put "White Supremacists" and "Nazis" in prison for speaking their nonsense. And way too many were advocating the violence the "Antifa" has been involved in.

It took me several days of explaining to them how "Free Speech" works and why we don't engage in violence against those who's speech we find offensive and several of them were pissed at me for not joining them.

How do you not see this "conservative vs liberal" shitstorm where you are? The "News" is promoting it 24/7 now.

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

#355

Post by ZeroGravitas »

ubertaco wrote: post #299
hsod wrote: post #293

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The liberal echo chamber is a problem, but I don't think it's anywhere near the scale of problem as things like climate change, healthcare, consumer protection rollbacks, voter suppression, mass incarceration and deportation. These issues are more important than whether someone feels comfortable wearing a MAGA hat at Google. Politics isn't baseball. The stakes are real, more so for some than for others. If you want t…

> If you want to express a political view at work then the people to whom you are expressing it have a right to dislike you for it. Do those people have a right to take action to negatively impact your career/livelihood/ability-to-provide-for-your-family because of your political views?

If your political views negatively impact their career/livelihood/ability-to-provide-for-your-family then it would be a violation of the golden rule if they couldn't.

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

#356

Post by ZeroGravitas »

xkvd wrote: post #348
greglindahl wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have you considered the Golden Rule?

Yes, and it's still unclear to me how it'd be applied here.

The related "veil of ignorance" test also applies.

Would you advocate for the systematic mistreatment of group X if you didn't know whether or not you yourself would be born as part of that group?

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

#357

Post by anbende »

classybull wrote: post #75
anbende wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anger at another perspective might be argued to be reasonable. There are some pretty abhorrent perspectives in the world. Getting into a fistfight with someone because they hold a different point of view, no matter how heinous, is absolutely and unequivocally unacceptable. The idea that there are points of view (not actions or laws but ideas) that warrant violence is a large and growing problem.

Not to Godwin it or anything, but... Wasn't the passivity and meekness of the opposition the exact reason fascists were able to rise relatively easily in the intrawar period? Personally, I think the concept that there aren't ideas worth throwing a punch over is equally as repugnant as saying you should punch anyone you disagree with.

It's not that there aren't ideas that are important, it's that violence is really really awful. Punch someone in the face for holding, for example, a racist view, and what happens? He becomes more entrenched in his view. And more angry. And more violent. What doesn't happen? His racism is never ever 'punched away'. So what was the point of that? Maybe it sated the punchers anger, but it made the situation unequivocally worse.

One thing that it is important to distinguish is holding an idea versus acting on it. The fascists were acting on their views, not merely holding them and talking about them. And violence may demand violence. And action, passing laws that enslave and oppress, that may demand violence too in some circumstances. But speech, even organized speech, demands speech not violence. It may demand a LOT of speech. But it does not demand violence.

If a person is willing to use violence to silence an opposing view that is being non-violently spoken, then that is the worse thing in my view. This includes the violent suppression of racist and sexist and other discriminatory views. Though I detest those positions, I detest violence more.

Now, inciting people to violence. Calling people to violence. I do believe that that is a different issue. And one that I do not know how to deal with.

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

#358

Post by metaphorm »

t0mbstone wrote: post #286
djsumdog wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Back in university, I had a flatmate that was pro-Bush. He wasn't unintelligent. He was getting his masters. He was a good guy and generally progressive in his views. He actually had pretty well laid out arguments as far as what he saw as best for the country and policy with the continuation of the Bush administration over Kerry. Both myself and my other housemates didn't understand it at the time, but I didn't lose…

I'm sorry, but you are dead wrong. There IS a difference between the political parties. All you have to do is look at their voting records on key issue. Here's a comprehensive breakdown, for proof: https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats...

the parties differ on fiscal policy, and each has chosen opposing sides in the inter-generational culture war, but besides that they are shockingly similar.

both parties are corporatist, neoliberal, military-interventionist, and in general anti-democratic in that they are very happy to allow wealthy interests to set policy without deferring much to the will of the people.

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

#359

Post by heurist »

ythn wrote: post #166
koolba wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> As someone who falls on the Liberal side of the spectrum, this bothers me more than almost anything else regarding modern day politics. If you fall in line with the "right" (left) side, you are allowed to say any number of disparaging, mean, hateful, or ignorant comments without fear of consequence - as long as it's aimed at the political right-wing. If you mention you are a conservative or hold conservative views,…

> I like to think of it like weak minded people who love to dish out insults but accuse you of being the most indecent person on the planet if you repeat their exact words back to them. Yeah, but you'll always have rationalization on why one side thinks it's okay: "It's okay in my case because I'm intolerant of intolerance" "It's okay in my case because I'm bigoted against bigotry"

Today, the right is stereotyped as tolerant of intolerance and the left is stereotyped as intolerant of intolerance. Both are untrue, but anonymity on the internet makes it seem like one vile person you disagree with is following you around spewing hate. When people are experiencing a rush of adrenaline from an argument, even online, many lose the ability to distinguish the words and actions of individuals from those of groups or to recognize subtlety and shades of gray. Everyone is arguing all the time these days, everyone has an opinion on everything, this huge adrenaline bubble is forming and it's going to pop one way or another...

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

#360

Post by justin66 »

koolba wrote: post #84
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…

> As someone who falls on the Liberal side of the spectrum, this bothers me more than almost anything else regarding modern day politics. If you fall in line with the "right" (left) side, you are allowed to say any number of disparaging, mean, hateful, or ignorant comments without fear of consequence - as long as it's aimed at the political right-wing. If you mention you are a conservative or hold conservative views,…

> I'd lean towards worse. I don't recall anyone attempting to publicly shame me for not being "conservative enough". I'd wager that most liberals have encountered some version of that.

Odd. Just an observation: conservatives in the US have a commonly used name for that - RINO - Republican in Name Only - and there is no equivalent name among liberals.

Post reply on HN