Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives • Hacker News Board

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#121

Post by camelNotation » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 2:55 PM UTC

amyjess wrote: post #31

camelNotation wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I'm a liberal, I have a co-worker who's a NeverTrump conservative, and we've bonded a lot over Trump's lack of decorum, professionalism, and basic respect for other human beings. Unfortunately, NeverTrump conservatives like him are few and far between. Sadly, the majority of conservatives I've encountered have completely sold out their principles to support Trump.

I would argue that by befriending and bonding with your conservative coworker over shared ideas, you are doing a great service to your country. You are talking to someone that disagrees with you, finding common ground, and co-existing in peace. That's all that's required for democratic government to function properly. The problem is that many people on both the left and the right refuse to do their duty in this regard and instead choose to vilify and hate their opponents.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#122

Post by rrauenza » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 4:12 PM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #111

sumeno wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

As Clinton put it, > that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. That's not a voter who has the luxury of setting aside their own livelihood and making discrimination (against strangers) a deal-breaker.

I'd never seen that 2nd half of the quote.

It's interesting how the full quote played out. Trump supporters assumed the deplorables she was talking about was a smear against them personally, rather than identifying with the 2nd half of the quote.

But then they also never heard the 2nd half of the quote as much as the 1st.

....still, an incredibly inpolitic statement.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#123

Post by pklausler » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 4:21 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #113

gonehome wrote: 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…

If you assume that anyone who reached different conclusions than you is stupid by definition , then you'll quite literally never be able to change your mind.

Nobody's stupid by definition. Lots of people are provably stupid by very short chains of reasoning, e.g. flat-earthers.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#124

Post by mfringel » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 4:29 PM UTC

BeetleB wrote: post #54

mfringel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your elected officials own the messaging on your political brand. You don't actually get a choice on this one. If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.

>If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing. Where we disagree is this: 1. You don't have to get a read on someone before interacting with them. That path is the path to stereotyping. 2. We disagree on whether those going-in assumptions are useful .

There are plenty of professions where someone has to "read a room/person/situation" before having a chance to interact with people. As an example, many types of consulting require someone to "take the pulse of a room" before directly interacting with any one person. To be sure, there's a price for being wrong, but there's also a reward for being right.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#125

Post by mfringel » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 4:37 PM UTC

creaghpatr wrote: post #90

mfringel wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your elected officials own the messaging on your political brand. You don't actually get a choice on this one. If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.

That’s textbook bigotry, and you recognize it yourself as you gleefully assert “You don’t actually get a choice” The burden is on you to “give him a choice”

I disagree with you.

If someone is wearing a Boston Bruins jersey in public, I think it's reasonable to believe that they're a fan of the Boston Bruins hockey team. I _could_ ask them if that's the case, or if they're a New York Rangers fan that's wearing it ironically, but that would (probably) be wasted effort, because I have a good idea of the answer I'm going to get.

It seems reasonably straightforward to apply that to other team insignia, especially one that is so clearly affiliated with a specific political leader, and their political outlook.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#126

Post by sumeno » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 5:34 PM UTC

erik_seaberg wrote: post #111

sumeno wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ac…

As Clinton put it, > that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re just desperate for change. That's not a voter who has the luxury of setting aside their own livelihood and making discrimination (against strangers) a deal-breaker.

Sure, but that also isn't the case for software engineers like the ones in the OP. These guys aren't coal miners in Appalachia, they're software engineers in Silicon Valley.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#127

Post by gonehome » Wed, Nov 01, 2017, 6:33 PM UTC

edanm wrote: post #113

gonehome wrote: 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…

If you assume that anyone who reached different conclusions than you is stupid by definition , then you'll quite literally never be able to change your mind.

I don't assume that - it depends on the conclusion and the reasoning that leads to it (obviously I can be wrong).

I think some conclusions are stupid based on the available information. When people hold a lot of stupid conclusions or a few really strongly I doubt their ability to think critically in general.

When someone has a different conclusion than I do, I'm curious about what reasoning lead to it, but often it's not an attempt to understand what's true based on available evidence. It's usually a conclusion they have for other reasons (identity? group association?) and they either can't articulate why they think the way they do or they retroactively come up with stuff that already fits their answer. The conclusion came before the reasoning about it. It's not about figuring out what's true.

This is a problem outside of politics - it's a problem with how our minds work by default and how people think.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#128

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 3:35 PM UTC

lj3 wrote: post #76

Upvoter33 wrote: post #49

Honestly, why don't people keep their politics out of the workplace entirely? Unless you are working at a lobbying firm or whatever, work should be about work, not about being a place to discuss gun rights, abortion, or immigration.

> Honestly, why don't people keep their politics out of the workplace entirely? Because the US is in the middle of a cold civil war that's heating up fast. Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably effective.

> Because the US is in the middle of a cold civil war that's heating up fast. Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably effective.

Dan Carlin is right [1]. People have completely lost their minds. Whether or not someone has the same political beliefs as you is not an indicator of whether he/she is a good or bad person. This kind of thinking is reductive and scary.

Trump may be a monster, but whatever happened to treating fellow human beings with dignity and respect? Everyone is the end result of a specific upbringing and a specific environment. People don't necessarily vote one way or another out of malice or hate.

[1] http://www.dancarlin.com/product/common-sense-317-shades-of-...

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#129

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 3:44 PM UTC

pklausler wrote: post #123

edanm wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you assume that anyone who reached different conclusions than you is stupid by definition , then you'll quite literally never be able to change your mind.

Nobody's stupid by definition. Lots of people are provably stupid by very short chains of reasoning, e.g. flat-earthers.

> Lots of people are provably stupid by very short chains of reasoning, e.g. flat-earthers.

They're provably wrong by very short chains of reasoning. That's not the same as provably stupid. Even very smart, educated people can hold beliefs that are completely bonkers though a combination of cognitive dissonance and misinformation. For a very prominent example, take a look at how Steve Jobs dealt with his cancer [1]:

> Despite his diagnosis, Jobs resisted his doctors' recommendations for medical intervention for nine months,[117] instead relying on a pseudo-medicine diet to try natural healing to thwart the disease.

And that's setting aside the apparent confusion in this thread between intelligence and morality. Just because someone holds a stupid belief, doesn't mean they're a bad person, a threat to their coworkers, or unable to do their job.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jobs#Health_issues

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#130

Post by AlexandrB » Thu, Nov 02, 2017, 3:49 PM UTC

gonehome wrote: post #52

BeetleB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is reasonable to question their competency. I think we all do it to an extent with coworkers. The mistake is concluding it based on this type of scant information. You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than the information you gleaned from that hat. >If someone walked in with a young earth creatio…

I think that's fair and it's important to dig deeper. People in the past did believe stupid things, but it's also a mixture of what information was available to them at the time to reason about. Some ideas that may have been the best option at the time should be discarded today given that we know more. I'd think if you brought those people from the past to today they may discard some of their ideas (though changing y…

> I'd think if you brought those people from the past to today they may discard some of their ideas (though changing your mind is hard).

Possible, but unlikely for any beliefs they hold dear. And thinking that other people stick to crazy beliefs because they are less smart than you is a great way to end up with a lot of crazy beliefs yourself. After all, why would you ever question them? You're too smart to believe something crazy!

"Science progresses one funeral at a time." -- Max Planck