Live data from Hacker News

Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

money.cnn.com

21–30 of 138 posts

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#21
post #9

"John: If I walked into work with a "Make America Great Again" hat, there would be repercussions. Quite a few people would take it as a personal affront, and I would expect to be out of the company within weeks, if not a month." If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just categorizing them as stupid). Is this reall…

"It's not because of politics, it's because my political opponents are objectively dumb."

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#22

Everytime I read one of these viewpoints I hear: 'I think others should be descriminated against and for that I am getting descriminated against? How dare they descriminate against my right to descriminate!'

The reduction of conservative beliefs to "discrimination of others" is a lot of the problem here. Conservative politics is a broad space. Sure, there are racists and misogynists among them and they get a lot of publicity, but there are also people who believe that all human beings are equal and that something like laissez-faire capitalism leads to a more just and prosperous society for everyone. They might be mistake…

The subjects in the article seem to invite such reductionism themselves by expressing a desire to wear MAGA gear, despite being socially libertarian/liberal. MAGA and Trump are almost explicitly (through Trump's words and actions) associated with aggressive social conservativism (Muslim travel ban, transgender military ban, cancellation of DREAM act, etc.) I doubt anyone would give two flying fucks if they wore, say, a Tax Foundation T-shirt.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#23
One of the problems that we face in the US today is that our two political parties, which once divided the electorate across fault lines of policy or values, now appear to have reshuffled the electorate across epistemologies. I sincerely believe that one party now provides a happier home for those who prefer empirical science.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#24

Ignoring for a moment the moral judgement of whether conservatism is "right" or "wrong" ... I imagine this is probably how closeted gay people felt for a long time, and still do outside of places like the Bay Area. It's poetic justice. The playing field will probably wobble back and forth for a little while and white conservative men will learn to play by the new rules - claiming victim status is as good a place to s…

When I was a child, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#25

Everytime I read one of these viewpoints I hear: 'I think others should be descriminated against and for that I am getting descriminated against? How dare they descriminate against my right to descriminate!'

Don't you think you are being a bigot when you prejudge all conservatives as wanting to discriminate against others?

...or that all conservatives are Trump supporters.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#26

Everytime I read one of these viewpoints I hear: 'I think others should be descriminated against and for that I am getting descriminated against? How dare they descriminate against my right to descriminate!'

The reduction of conservative beliefs to "discrimination of others" is a lot of the problem here. Conservative politics is a broad space. Sure, there are racists and misogynists among them and they get a lot of publicity, but there are also people who believe that all human beings are equal and that something like laissez-faire capitalism leads to a more just and prosperous society for everyone. They might be mistake…

While it is true that there are economic conservatives who are not racists and misogynists, the Republican party platform is pretty discriminatory against several groups.

Someone can certainly vote for a candidate like Trump and not be pro-discrimination, but that person is saying they are willing to accept discrimination for the sake of the policies they do agree with.

That is certainly their right, but you can't act shocked when the marginalized groups and those who support them have a negative reaction when they find out you support candidates who want to take away their rights.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#27

Why would you not expect your co-workers to take a MAGA hat as a personal attack? The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them from the country. Remember that even some green card holders were briefly barred from reentering. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca...

What if you don't have the hat but don't favor liberal immigration policies? Would expressing this political stance be taken as a personal attack? If so, that level of "we must stamp out the heresy!" is generally associated with more extreme religious types, not supposedly rational open-minded people. And that's where the danger lies: once you stop permitting the expression of contrary views, your ability to argue ag…

If your political belief, implemented, would directly and immediately destroy my or my loved ones' lives, keep it the hell out of the workplace.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#28
post #16

The ultimate irony is that many conservatives will hesitate before commenting on this here, because people don't want to be on the receiving end of a torrent of downvotes.

You can downvote?

After you reach a certain number of upvotes yes. (I believe 500)

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#29

Why would you not expect your co-workers to take a MAGA hat as a personal attack? The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them from the country. Remember that even some green card holders were briefly barred from reentering. [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-ca...

>The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them from the country.

That's essentially saying that people have to agree with the whole platform or none of it.

As an example, there are many liberals who voted for Obama and did not agree with all aspects of the platform (healthcare reform or military policies). Would wearing a "Yes, we can" shirt/hat be offensive, then?

That kind of argument seems very reductionist.

Finally, the very format of your question is problematic, for two reasons.

First, making claims that someone is trying to offend by wearing a slogan is what is referred to as "attribution of intention". Instead of having a dialog about it, you're concluding the person's intention. As someone who has often been on the receiving end of that (I'm sure we all have on divisive issues), that is very offensive.

Second, this type of reasoning is what I often call, "From ignorance comes uncertainty." You are indirectly admitting you cannot understand any other reason someone would act in a certain way, and then imply you know the "true" reason.

Usually such statements are phrased as "I cannot think of a good reason X would do it, therefore it must be because of Y".

I'll grant that you did not use this exact template, and if your question really was borne out of curiosity, I apologize for my own "attribution of intent". But I do hope I have given you something to think about on the topic in question.

Post reply on HN