What People Think You Can’t Say in Silicon Valley

“A lot of the ideas here will not actually get you ostracized from Silicon Valley society.”

Oh dude you have just not been paying attention.

Can you show me a single example of someone in tech who publicly expresses, at any point, any of the beliefs which are “not allowed?”

I’m looking for one.

Find me one person on Twitter in tech aside from John McAfee or Peter Theil who would dare. Sam Altman was good enough to step forward, I hope he won’t be the last. The complete and total castigation of the dude by every tech media outlet showed exactly what happens to anyone who isn’t rich enough not to care.

While Sam Altman can take a beating, a standard employee like James Damore can’t. Did we forget about him? Apparently we did!

Show me a single tech luminary staying that diversity is overrated and has numerous downsides (such as the degradation of communal trust which had swept the valley), that we don’t actually need additional codes of conduct to add protections that are already covered in the US legal code at every Meetup, that all gender bathrooms are lunacy or that most of the Millenials coming into the job market have an incredibly broken and fearful view of the world that is unwarranted by the available evidence.

Show me a single tech luminary willing to say that women should realize they have advantages and disadvantages and should take responsibility for guarding themselves st off-site social events to avoid being approached by men.

One! Show me one!

I can find these opinions on conservative podcasts but I have never seen anyone express them in tech. Ever!

I see a non-stop avalanche of one set of these opinions on every social media feed, internal company meeting and industry conference.

I have NEVER seen ANYONE notable in tech aside from Peter Thiel, who has been made untouchable st this point.

Why is that? It’s because they know it’s not good business and they will get to join Peter Theil in the excommunicated pile.

A great example is Scott Adams. Scott used to make hundreds of thousands of dollars per year giving paid speeches.

When he began writing about Trump, he was excommunicated and all of his speaking gigs were cancelled.

Another great example is the systematic and deliberate demonetization of conservative YouTube videos. People who are very balanced and fair like Dave Rubin have had their videos defunded for having conservative speakers as interview guests.

Twitter has been notorious for slowing down or “never getting around to” giving Blue Check Marks to conservative speakers - If I remember correctly, Scott Adams had to reach a simply insane number of followers before being given the check.

The hatred of conservatives and direct, persecutory and economic attacks on them is real, ongoing and getting worse.

Seriously - if you believe most of these opinions won’t harm your career if expressed publicly, you have really not been paying attention.

If you don’t believe me - Try it. Go on Twitter right now and say: “all gender bathrooms are stupid.”

Watch what happens.

I think it is reasonable to question what people mean by "can't discuss". As mentioned in the article people can discuss anything, but certain things are met with some pushback which makes discussing them hard or unpleasant.

I would say, if you hold one of these "taboo" opinions there is a reasonable amount of responsibility on you for how you open a discussion on them. If you do want to discuss them you need to try and raise them in a way which shows you are genuinely interested in discussion, including possibly changing your own opinion and trying to get a better understanding of others opinions without necessarily judging them. Rather than coming from a fixed position and trying to convert people, which in my experience rarely works.

If you hold one of more of these taboo opinions and think I am being rude, suggesting you don't discuss properly it that those you discuss with are all perfect reasonable beings that is not the case. But in my experience it is not common for people to open a discussion honestly looking to assess their own opinions as well as those they are discussing with. If you aren't open to change your mind, why should anyone be open to change theirs? If you are already doing that, then good for you! Hopefully some minds will get changed and we can all move forward with a more honest understanding of the world.

There's a big difference between ideas that weaken minorities, and ideas that weaken majorities, because you get blowback for different reasons. When you attack minorities the people that get upset with you, are people that are worried that weakening an already weak group is a bad thing. When you attack majorities however, you get blowback from the people that are afraid to lose their power.

I agree that there are problems with not allowing people to express all kinds of ideas, but there's a big difference in the two types above: You should be more careful when attacking the already weak, for their position is already brittle.

Citation needed.

Are you going to argue that there is more racism in a Texas company than a California company? You are really going to have to prove that.

Have you ever actually lived in a city such as Houston? One of the most diverse cities in the country.

Look how segregated Silicon Valley is. Cupertino and Saratoga Schools are —- about 80% Asian and 2% black. How is that possible given that racism is a “completely unacceptable” idea in California? Those schools are reflecting the employment of the region. Since those are expensive areas, only people with wel paying tech jobs can live there and yet the diversity is pretty much the opposite of the US as a whole.

Perhaps Silicon Valley needs to be called out — far more than those “racists in the south.”

This is a fantastic HN thread to scroll to the very bottom, and see which opinions have been greyed-out from heavy downvote bombardments. Highly recommended.