Live data from Hacker News

New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

ethicalsystems.org

281–290 of 734 posts

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#281

Progressivism is the new Christianity, taking over the pagan landscape. It used to be that politics (in the UK) was class based. You are this or that based on your background. Two people from different classes would understand why the other did not support the same political party. That was how it was, and nobody felt the other should not exist. Everyone felt the other had a place in society. These progressive ideolo…

> Progressivism is the new Christianity, taking over the pagan landscape

Perhaps your comment is a bit of a rant with highs and lows, but this is a rather powerful analogy.

Growing up in Spain, a country with a very strong Catholic tradition, I hated the Church and its invasive prescriptions. Still to this day I count my lucky stars not having spent my younger years during the Franco dictatorship, where being Spanish was inseparable from being Catholic by law, or worse yet, during the Inquisition where by law you could end up in burnt alive in a public square.

Now, however, it's mostly Progressives who assume this role of telling people what to do. This includes companies of dubious moral standing (Google, Uber, and others) who are constantly reminding us of what's Good, mostly for marketing reasons.

I can't stand it now, as I couldn't back in the day with conservative Catholics. Can't everyone just fuck off and stop preaching their shitty gospel?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#282
Many "progressive" activists are like Soviet apologists a few decades ago. Totally sure of their righteousness, blinded by their ideology, unable to accept differing viewpoints.

I sure don't want to work with those who bring their hateful ideology to the workplace.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#283

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

I have a few (really lovely) conservative friends who have expressed to me that they feel they can't express their political opinions outside of close friends and family because of the social risks involved with doing so. While I hold some "controversial" political opinions they're mostly related to fiscal policy rather than social policy so I've never personally felt like I couldn't express myself if I wanted to -- although I prefer not discussing politics in work environments.

However, last year I decided to start promoting conservative views I don't necessarily agree with that my friends hold to see what the consequences of this would be. I think people would be surprised at how open most people are to be honest. I've expressed conservative views on immigration, trans-rights and Trump as if they were my own and had very little push back outside of Twitter. I can contrast this with the fact that I've seen some people over the last few years express left-wing positions at work and have had at least equal push back. I especially remember one guy who expressed how he felt we should remove statues of historical figures who did things we wouldn't approve of today and got a very strong negative reaction in my office.

I wonder if the real problem here is that people who are conservatively minded are just naturally less comfortable with social conflict. I know my progressive friends are in all regards much more opinionated and seem far more comfortable with conflict, where as my conservative friends tend to be the types of people who avoid conflict.

Perhaps it's an age thing too. Older people who are generally more conservative and perhaps also less interested in getting into a heated debates on Twitter or in the office about some slightly controversial political position they hold. This difference in willingness to enter into social conflict may explain why conservatives feel they are in a minority despite making up about 50% of the population.

All I can say to those who feel oppressed is that as a bullied kid something I learnt from a young age is that it's hard to look myself in the mirror if I start trying to adapt my behaviour to please others. I much rather be myself and hated than try to conform at the expense of my identity. Be proud of who you are and never feel afraid to express yourself. If you're hated for that, so be it. It's better to be yourself than a coward.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#284

"In the United Kingdom, most people don’t feel comfortable bringing their whole selves to work. For two-thirds of the population, talking politics sincerely, on the job, is uncomfortable." I don't live in the UK but have been there many times including having worked there and I believe this view is reasonably commonplace elsewhere, especially so in all Anglophone countries. I've always been a highly political person…

> 'gay' had a completely different meaning to what it does these days. And as for the subject itself, being completely taboo it was never discussed > If one looks at the problem globally, speaking one's mind in public nowadays is fraught with dangers. No wonder that so few actually do so. You don’t see any irony?

"You don’t see any irony?"

If any, it's not indented. My once lecturer in logic would have delighted in giving this text to the class as an exercise, the students would have then set about analyzing what I'd written. He then have said 'this is what you actually wrote, but is it what you actually meant to say?' Answering 'no', I may have been given a c-grade pass if he'd been feeling generous on the day. ;-)

Your implication is absolutely correct, it's crappy writing written in a hurry. My question now is did you get the overall gist of what I'd said? (It would also be interesting to know what good AI would have made of it.)

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#285
post #13

Funny that they don't mention what "certain, commonplace views" people "stay silent" about. That might put a different spin on things. As I mentioned [1] about the Basecamp debacle, you can't get full "viewpoint diversity" and full "identity diversity" because some viewpoints are hostile to some identities. Given our society's long history of those viewpoints being endemic, and given the slow movement away from ident…

> Funny that they don't mention what "certain, commonplace views" people "stay silent" about. That might put a different spin on things. The article actually mentions at least two examples, so I don't think there's as much room for spin with this as you might think. One is Conservative voters, who have been vilified by the hard left since the 1970s, not least because of a sense of betrayal with the erosion of parts o…

> One is Conservative voters, who have been vilified by the hard left since the 1970s, not least because of a sense of betrayal with the erosion of parts of the historic Labour voter base as people from working-class backgrounds moved to white-collar professions and abandoned trade unionism, and this has been particularly apparent in the arts. There is a "Shy Tory" phenomenon that has continued to confound pollsters.

not to be a nit picking noo noo, but both wings of each party mock and vilify the other party. (just have a look at the various twitter streams for your local labour/green/tory/libdem party.) its what they've always done.

The labour party hasn't been about trade unionism since at least 1995.

The problem you are asserting as effectively a freedom of speech issue isn't that, its tribalism. The brexit debate is a good example of this. The country is split 50/50 (+-10%) between remain/brexit. It is therefore impossible to present an average view.

This is because its such a polarising issue. Made worse by the fact that we can see so much froth in real time about each tiny plot point. We are used to now seeing the most extreme arguments about each trivial thing (the BBC won't show you THIS. or the MSM are so biased towards x) we are simply not used to coming to a consensus anymore.

We have lost (or never had) the ability to listen to the "other" side and find common ground. In all debates we seem to be shouting loudly at the "other" side, so that we can get a reaction from our own.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#286
post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why spouting stats to make a point is dangerous, murky water. Tread carefully. Stats can give us quantitative views but give no opinion on the qualitative view.

I agree - interpretation is super important. The above is a good example; someone who isn’t paying attention might not take into account that there are 5-6x the number of white vs black people in the US, which puts a very different spin on the raw figures.

Then normalise for crime rates. Ah, the wonders of slicing and dicing a dataset.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#287

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions i…

> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This resonates deeply. I'm at the point where "I'm entitled to my opinion!" is a great signal to change the topic, never to return to the topic of politics with that person ever again

I think that might be a signal that you have already gone too far into the convo too!

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#288

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In princible, the progressive left supports free speach. In practice, disagreement is met with explanations and accusations of ”shifting overton window”, ”new normal” and ”normalization”. Meaning that, Yes, you do have the right of free speach, but No, you should not be saying the wrong things.

Just because I support your right to say it doesn't mean I have to celebrate what you say, or why you said it.

Just because you "don't celebrate it" doesn't mean you should call their boss, harass their workplace, place demands that they are fired from their job, mark them as bad people, and so on.

And yet many people do just that, and feel good about it.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#289
Before I discuss anything complex with another person (politics, religion, etc.), I check to see if they're an idiot. Do they think for themselves or parrot a standard position? Can they explain how they came to a conclusion? When they say "I think . . . ", did they? It doesn't matter they subject; either they think or they don't.

If a person doesn't think (many don't), you're not arguing with them, but with a set of recordings.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#290
post #147
post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the problem. "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has been replaced with "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". The latter is, of course, utter nonsense. Repercussions or retaliation for expressing wrongthink is the literal definition of a place that does not have freedom of speech.

I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about the…

>You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought?

The issue of calling someone "a liar / cheat" if they're not belongs to libel. Same way yelling fire in a crowded cinema is a public safety issue.

Expression of ideas is neither, and should not have "consequences".

>To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink.

So is it OK if a mob (not a legal or govermnet entity) stomped on you and beat you to a bloody pulp?

If a church (not a legal entity) asked its members to spit on your face and abuse you on the internet?

If you were immediately fired?

Post reply on HN