New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity • Hacker News Board

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#311

Post by js8 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:03 AM UTC

livinginfear wrote: post #80

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 believe that liberalism and conservativism concern different values, liberalism is about personal freedom (like freedom of speech), while conservativism is about preserving the existing values in the society.

It's quite normal as we grow up we become more conservative, especially successful people - we want to continue the success that was based on values we grew up with. That's why conservativism is associated with belief in authority - you need authority to enforce the values of the past.

So when you grew up, you perceived freedom of speech as a good value because it meant freedom, and now you perceive it as a good value because it was there when you grew up.

However, liberals moved on, and found other issues that concern human freedom, which were neglected before. So for instance, there is freedom to have a different sexual orientation, and be able to express it. Conservatives disagree with that value because it simply wasn't part of our culture in the past.

(Progressives - or perhaps socialists would be more fitting name - are based on another value, namely inclusion in the community. They are distinct from liberals.)

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#312

Post by ForHackernews » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:03 AM UTC

msg3 wrote: post #302

ForHackernews wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, I probably largely agree with that. But there's a difference between what you're describing and what often happens in the real world where a twitter mob calls for you to be fired and your company immediately shitcans you to placate the yobs. e.g. https://arstechnica.com/staff/2013/03/donglegate-is-classic-...

I'd agree that a twitter mob getting someone fired is in most cases a bad thing and I can think of a bunch of reasons why it's a bad thing. But "infringing on the employees right to free speech" isn't one of them. This might seem a bit pedantic, but I do think it's important. If something is a violation of someone's rights then there doesn't need to be any further discussion - it shouldn't be allowed. I think claimin…

I think we largely agree, and where we disagree is quibbling over semantics.

I don't consider myself a "speech absolutist", so I wouldn't agree that assigning, say, twitter mobbing to the category of "free speech issues" shuts down further discussion.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#313

Post by kstenerud » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:07 AM UTC

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #259

yerwhat01010 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This is so true. I've seen polling showing that large numbers of people believe that the number of unarmed black men fatally shot by American police every year is in the "thousands" or even "tens of thousands". And the further to the left the media people consume, the higher they're likely to believe the number is. The ac…

(Someone commented that it's "insane" to say that you should be able to shoot someone if they attack you with their fists and I typed out a long reply, but they had deleted their comment before I could post it, so I'm going to post my reply here so I don't feel like I wasted my efforts) Yes, it absolutely is a valid reason to shoot someone, and anyone with training in firearms or self-defense would agree. You're not…

I hear this opinion a lot when talking to Americans. I've lived in many places (including America for a few years), and I've noted that in first world Asian and European countries, cops very rarely ever use their guns (and in many cases don't even have them to begin with). Deaths on both sides are much lower, and trust in the police is much higher.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#314

Post by hilbert42 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:07 AM UTC

livinginfear wrote: post #80

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…

"However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind."

You're dead right and it's damned terrible. I long for both formal and informal debates on many topics but without my opponents becoming annoyed or offended (as so often they do nowadays). These days it seems almost impossible to debate any subject without upsetting someone.

I now long for the type of television programs that I remember from my youth—talking heads discussing and debating serious topics. For instance, I remember Bertrand Russell, Malcolm Muggeridge and A.J.P. Taylor and many others and it was wonderful and exciting television.

What so many people fail to realize these days is that one can learn so much from discussions and debates of this kind.

Incidentally, such discussions always remind me of the wonderful formal debate between Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus in Book One of Plato's Republic on the topic of justice. It's so good that every time I read it, it sends shivers of excitement down my back.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#315

Post by js8 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:09 AM UTC

kypro wrote: post #283

livinginfear wrote: post #80

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 --…

> 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.

Exactly, conservatives do not want change, and therefore do not want a conflict associated with the change. However, liberals and progressives push for changes because they simply do not value "do the things as in the past" nearly as much as their respective values, and every change means, potentially, a conflict.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#316

Post by blueflow » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:09 AM UTC

Tycho wrote: post #310

livinginfear wrote: post #80

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…

Lot of advice floating about the workplace these days along the lines of be candid, join the conversation, bring your whole self to work, etc. The people giving this advice seem to have no conception that not everyone actively engaged in these topics is acting in 100% good faith. Being too open could so easily backfire. Encouraging this is borderline negligent. Indeed there’s entire branches of activism that rest on…

I never got what people mean with "bad faith" stuff. Like its some inherently bad kind of behaviors and ideas? Can you explain it to me like im 5?

The worst that i can think of is that people are hiding their true interests and thus lying to you.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#317

Post by belorn » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:10 AM UTC

msg3 wrote: post #147

efaref wrote: 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…

Freedom of speech should have the same protection as freedom of religion, and there really shouldn't be a difference between if someone speech is referencing views from an old book/science fiction author, life experience good and bad, or anything else that is a reflection of the personal identify of an individual.

The European humans right is a good example of this. EU has countries with widely different religions, widely different politics, geographic regions and cultures. If you want freedom of speech in such a diverse area you can't allow discrimination for expressing wrongthink, because any speech is a wrongthink somewhere except for views about kittens and ice cream.

The only major hard lines are explicit and direct threat of violence targeting person or persons, fraud, and national security (the later being a topic of debate).

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#318

Post by briefcomment » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:10 AM UTC

ajkjk wrote: post #3

I don't trust this article. The phrase "Losing viewpoint diversity" is of course crafted to make it sound like a chilling trend. Pretty clear what they want you to think about it. But if you drill into what that's referring to, whether you think it's a bad thing is entirely up to what you think of how the viewpoints are changing. "Fewer racists than ever" also maps to "less viewpoint diversity" but is totally a good…

If someone thinks unchecked immigration makes neighborhoods less safe, do you consider them racist?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#319

Post by zozbot234 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:10 AM UTC

js8 wrote: post #311

livinginfear wrote: post #80

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 believe that liberalism and conservativism concern different values, liberalism is about personal freedom (like freedom of speech), while conservativism is about preserving the existing values in the society. It's quite normal as we grow up we become more conservative, especially successful people - we want to continue the success that was based on values we grew up with. That's why conservativism is associated wit…

Libertarians have always been favorable to "the freedom to have a different sexual orientation"; it's not a "new" issue that was only discovered recently. However, conservatives and libertarians have always known that the freedom to live one's life as one desires can never extend beyond the point where others' freedoms are curtailed. Otherwise it's not actual freedom, but mere licence.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#320

Post by krapp » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 11:12 AM UTC

coldtea wrote: post #290

msg3 wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hav…

>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".

Both libel and inciting imminent lawless action are expressions of ideas, that term is so vague as to be all-encompassing.

And the latter example has been upheld by the Supreme Court as protected free speech.