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

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#441

Post by nostromo » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:18 PM UTC

datavirtue wrote: post #429

hilbert42 wrote: post #314

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 reme…

Free to Choose is absolute gold if you want to see rational debate among diametrically opposed groups about modern political and economic topics. Compared to what we see today it looks like something from another planet.

I watched Ayn Rand interviewed by Donahue in 1979 recently. I was shocked that this was daytime TV 40 years ago.

Give it a watch sometime and compare it what you see on TV today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jv0zTiv-i7s

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#442

Post by krageon » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #115

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…

Would you feel more comfortable in a company that openly encouraged / enforced political debate within a civil framework? Is the problem (in your company and the world at large) that open respectful political debate has not got a common set of rules / words? If there was a phrase "I respectfully disagree - I understand that ..." was a phrase used by every TV host, Politician and Facebook poster, would prefacing your…

> in a company

No, because companies have absolutely 0 incentive to stand by you if doing so becomes difficult. They are amoral, when they throw you under the bus it's like a lion killing a gazelle. Just something they do. You should not ever trust any company in any way.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#443

Post by vixen99 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:19 PM UTC

amalcon wrote: post #337

Underqualified wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One thing I read recently which seemed weird at first but has made me really consider a lot of things about current culture differently: "Taking offence is an act of aggression"

I don't mean to pick on you a bit here, but this feels like a good place to express something I've been having trouble with. My parents raised me to do my best to neither take nor give offense. Most of my peers as a child were taught the same way. Obviously we're not Vulcans; We will sometimes inadvertently give offense, or respond emotionally to something that may have been meant innocuously. Yet so much of what I s…

Pubic culture? Should that be flagged?

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#444

Post by datavirtue » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

Flozzin wrote: post #410

blueflow wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me bad faith is also just lying. You lie about your motives and intentions. You lie about the other's sides motives and intentions. Bad faith actors also prop up a lot of straw men in order to tear them down, but disengage or put words in the mouth of direct opponents. They make concrete statements, then back away and act like they never said if called out for it, or can't back up their assumption with evidence. B…

It can come from cognitive dissonance and ignorance, refusing to concede a point that has been logically refuted. Maintaining a position and then launching a personal attack if the position is threatened.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#445

Post by giantg2 » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:20 PM UTC

Loughla wrote: post #417

giantg2 wrote: post #397

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've been one to speak my mind. I see myself as having been punished for it. I was doing work a grade or two above mine but was held back from promotion. So I didn't make senior developer on that team. Then I was even in jeopardy of losing my job over a statement I made (not vulgar, disrespectful, or anything) so I have to switch stacks a couple times to move out of a bad area of the company. I'm 9 years in and just…

Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument: >the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling ar…

This is basically my point. If you have a srated goal of getting to 1.00 v 1.00 with that metric and focus on the individuals in the same jobs, then you will never get there. It's a mismatch between policy and intent. Using the goal post analogy, there taking their shots at the sideline without realizing where the goal really is. The posts haven't moved, they just see a mirage in another place.

"...points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men."

I do disagree a little with this part. I know that might be true in some cases, but I think a lot of it is by choice too. My wife could have worked at a regular job and made more money, but she likes her flexible hours and her fun job more. In fact, her hourly rate is more than mine, but she just works fewer hours. So she has the opportunity to make more than me, but chooses not to. It makes sense. If I could work less and have less stress, more fun, and the same benefits or living conditions...

I remember a study about African American college grads and aggregate pay being lower than other groups. The analysis showed that the main part of that was because they were choosing jobs based on societal benefit rather than just pay. Things like social workers, teachers, etc. I believe the BLS study showed some of that to be true for the gender wage gap too. Basically, I'm saying that it's not like people are being forced into or away from specific jobs as the main driver.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#446

Post by Loughla » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

zozbot234 wrote: post #319

js8 wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't understand what you're saying here. Please explain. Are the first sentence and the second sentence connected? If so, I am lost.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#447

Post by pasabagi » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

efaref wrote: post #127

samsari wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

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 think you have a misconception here about what freedom is. A freedom is a restriction on the state. It simply says that the state cannot act against you for exercising a freedom, or act to prevent you from doing so. Repercussions, consequences, or retaliations are completely unrelated so long as they are not state-sponsored.

With this in mind, "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it", and "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences", are totally compatible. You can both fight for a restriction on state power, and have a personal reaction to what somebody has said.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#448

Post by InvertedRhodium » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:22 PM UTC

spangry wrote: post #374

mytherin wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The refined point (and all preceding points) are not based in any sort of actionable public policy. I would argue that that point is as much based in emotion as the leftist points the parent is talking about. Yes, it sounds good that in a fair society people should not be entitled to the fruits of someone else's work, except if they cannot work themselves. It sounds good to people of both sides. I would not label thi…

> The refined point (and all preceding points) are not based in any sort of actionable public policy. I would argue that that point is as much based in emotion as the leftist points the parent is talking about. Yes, it sounds good that in a fair society people should not be entitled to the fruits of someone else's work, except if they cannot work themselves. It sounds good to people of both sides. I would not label t…

The mutual obligation requirement in Australia might not be the best example, with at least 2 issues:

1. It's, in part, a thinly veiled program to transfer public money into the pockets of privately owned "Employment Service Providers"

2. It's offloading the "checking" to other private companies by way of requiring people to apply for a certain number of jobs. Any jobs. Maybe the same jobs you've been rejected for again and again so many times that HR recognizes your identical cover letters coming in every month.

3. Might be an extension of 1, but Employment Service Providers (private, for-profit companies) have the ability to report you to the government and get your payment cancelled for missing certain appointments, with little oversight and no repercussions for errors.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#449

Post by martiuk » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:23 PM UTC

mustafa_pasi wrote: post #157

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…

As a CofE churchwarden, I can confirm that progressivism has taken over Christianity, as well as become a secular belief system.

Re: New evidence that British workplaces are losing viewpoint diversity

#450

Post by Loughla » Thu, Apr 29, 2021, 1:25 PM UTC

nostromo wrote: post #433

Loughla wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument: >the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling ar…

> it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

Obviously that is the case. It would be startling if adults chose careers in exactly even proportions, regardless of their gender, age, ethnicity, or whatever. BUT, based on human developmental theory and how people make decisions, no choice is truly random.

Therefore, there must be a reason for those choices.

Your theory offers no explanation other than random chance, from what I can tell. Identifying inputs and outcomes is sort of the point of solving problems.