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

411–418 of 418 posts

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

#411

Post by tchaffee »

bjl wrote: post #397
tchaffee wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't. Since that's nothing close to what he says, you might just learn something by listening. Haidt is pretty fair and non-judgmental. If anything one could use his talk to say conservatives are using a more balanced consideration when making moral decisions. Using five factors instead of just two.

Haidt's ideas are widely discredited among academics in sociology, psychology, and philosophy. He's peddling pseudo-science that just so happens to make conservatives seem more 'balanced' than liberals.

Sources? I'd add that even if you can show he has no support in the academic world, his framework has been a life changer for me in how I relate to and negotiate with conservatives.

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

#412

Post by zimpenfish »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #403
zimpenfish wrote: post #393

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If Trump's audio conservation had not leaked, he would have won by even larger margin. Unless you can show some evidence for this, it's just an unprovable counterfactual and completely useless.

You looking for sauce? Sauce is in Hillary's bag. You are welcome. In other words, if you don't agree, you can safely ignore the comment, or take upon yourself to prove it wrong.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Extraordinary_claims_require_e...

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

#413

Post by azey47 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #297
azey47 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting perspective. I know the left/right spectrum has many definitions, and there is little consensus on them, but I think this captures the essential philosophical and ideological distinctions: http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-content/... So by my measure, both Republicans and Democrats are in the middle leaning left - both supporting various forms of rights violations. Libertarian…

That is an absurdly incorrect definition of left/right wing. The original use of left and right wings was that the right wing supported the French monarchy while the left wing opposed it, but under your definition supporters of an absolute monarchy would be far left.

Sure, historically that is true, but that historical usage doesn't capture that, philosophically and ideologically - absolute monarchy and communism just aren't that different - both rely on subjugation of the individual's rights to some authority (a monarch in one case, and society in another).

The historical, and common left/right distinction is even more absurd when you consider that socialism is considered left-wing, and fascism is considered right-wing. Where does that leave Nazism? Centrist?

What I like about the spectrum put together by the Objective Standard is that it essentializes the ideological distinctions between these movements, as viewed from the perspective of "degrees of respect for / violation of individual rights".

I am well aware that it's not the way most people understand the terms left-wing and right-wing, but to be frank, most people DON'T understand the terms, because they're not conceptually consistent in the slightest.

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

#414

Post by vorotato »

peoplewindow wrote: post #409
vorotato wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not actually an argument? Also the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox and is a component of decision theory, and is a pretty well understood mathematical construct. So you can't argue that the Paradox of Tolerance isn't a thing you can only argue that the Nazis and KKK aren't intolerant. Most people would disagree with that...

The "Paradox" you are citing was posed by a philosopher, not a mathematician. Philosophy is not mathematics, no matter how much they might like the association. This isn't as complicated or confounding as you seem to think. The "fascists" that Antifa think they're fighting aren't attempting to overthrow the government or build armies of SS-style street thugs. They are usually just protesting, or sometimes trying to g…

I never mentioned antifa and I don't care to discuss whether violence is or is not effective at making social change. I'm personally not a violent person, so that's not my path.

Secondly it is a component of decision theory and yes philosophers can propose mathematical propositions that do get rigorously investigated by real mathematicians. Saying a philosopher can't do math is probably the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

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

#415

Post by vorotato »

meric wrote: post #410
vorotato wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not actually an argument? Also the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox and is a component of decision theory, and is a pretty well understood mathematical construct. So you can't argue that the Paradox of Tolerance isn't a thing you can only argue that the Nazis and KKK aren't intolerant. Most people would disagree with that...

The paradox of tolerance is false - the intolerant can change their minds - it's their intolerant ideas that must be attacked, not the person whose minds hold those ideas. The persons always deserve to be treated with as if they are fellow human beings, because they are. Those ones who would not tolerate those with intolerant ideas, have intolerant ideas too, and they must be convinced their ideas are wrong.

The paradox of tolerance isn't false, and doesn't make the claims you're saying are false. I think you're conflating the person who responded to me in support of antifa and tolerating vs not tolerating. There are many ways to be intollerant, and violence does not have to be one of those ways. I won't have the discussion around the effectiveness of violence in changing discourse as I am non-violent so it is not my place.

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

#416

Post by Eric_WVGG »

nkurz wrote: post #328
Eric_WVGG wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a theoretical coworker of yours, my reaction would depend a lot on which vote you were talking about. In 00 I thought Bush voters were just sort of clods, hopelessly partisans with a poor understanding of the dangers of nepotism and monarchy. (I thought the same about Clinton voters in 08 and much of 16, to be fair) In 04, Bush voters were supporting a guy who responded to the 9/11 attacks by invading _the wrong c…

If you had admitted voting for his re-election to me at lunch I would have gotten up and left the table without saying a word. I can understand feeling this way, but do you see this as a response that improves the situation? Is your impulse to silent action just that it's easier than engaging, or is there a positive outcome of silently leaving that would not be also achieved by explaining your reasons for leaving? En…

Thank you for responding.

No. I don't think "just leaving" would have improved the situation. A screaming match and fists wouldn't have improved the situation either.

American culture has found itself in this weird space where arguments that were supposedly settled in the last century are apparently still up for debate. In the case of torture, there are two questions at hand: One, does it work, and two, if it works, is its use defensible. Believing the first is ignorant; believing the second is inhumane.

I don't see any sort of constructive middle ground or even argument to be had over such a basic conversation of good vs. evil. Since I spent most of 2004-2008 in a state of rage over the presence and defense of actual evil in a country and society that I love, I would not have had the self-control necessary to engage in a dialogue. So I would have left.

(The down-voting was weird but predictable.)

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

#417

Post by ubertaco »

feedjoelpie wrote: post #145
ubertaco wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a two-way street. As a Christian, I get upset when I hear my employer promote Bhuddist values (inviting Bhuddist monks on-site to otherwise-nonreligious corporate events) while also parading their role in defeating legislation to protect religious clergy who hold traditionally-Christian beliefs from being sued over their beliefs. This communicates to me both "you're the enemy, and we are working hard to make…

A few things... * Your boss parading his religion around and making you feel othered, while probably legal, is uncool. * Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that across America, it's by and large the Christian viewpoint that's flaunted at employees. I feel bad for you, but I'm also happy that you've been given an opportunity to understand why this is bad. * You're protected from being _discriminated agains…

An update on this: all employees' posters and signs that have been part of the office for years have been taken down, and replaced with photos of HQ-based employees marching in various LGBTQ Pride parades (which is pretty controversial on its own), and photos of Bhuddist monks on stage at company events.

Marc Benioff is not so good at hiding his religious intolerance.

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

#418

Post by bsenftner »

peoplewindow wrote: post #409
vorotato wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not actually an argument? Also the Paradox of Tolerance is a paradox and is a component of decision theory, and is a pretty well understood mathematical construct. So you can't argue that the Paradox of Tolerance isn't a thing you can only argue that the Nazis and KKK aren't intolerant. Most people would disagree with that...

The "Paradox" you are citing was posed by a philosopher, not a mathematician. Philosophy is not mathematics, no matter how much they might like the association. This isn't as complicated or confounding as you seem to think. The "fascists" that Antifa think they're fighting aren't attempting to overthrow the government or build armies of SS-style street thugs. They are usually just protesting, or sometimes trying to g…

"Antifa's agenda is to use violence to suppress speech." Wrong. Antifa's entire purpose is to pose as the alternative thugs, ready to act should the intolerance groups choose execute their more overt agendas. I have participated, and the strict line we draw is only interact when someone's person space is violated. As a basic rule, that's pretty solid.
Post reply on HN