Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

money.cnn.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#131

Post by lj3 »

AlexandrB wrote: post #128
lj3 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 monst…

This has nothing to do with whether people vote republican or democrat, or who voted for Trump and who didn't. If that's your entire understanding of the situation, then none of this makes any sense and it looks like everybody involved is crazy. If you want to have any hope of understanding the situation (WHY people are acting the way that they are and WHY Trump was elected in the first place), then you're going to have to dig deeper.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#132

Post by pklausler »

AlexandrB wrote: post #129
pklausler wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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]:…

Being persistently wrong, despite overwhelming evidence, is stupid.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#133

Post by stale2002 »

CalChris wrote: post #67
majormajor wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't have the hat or the beliefs, but way to illustrate that you can't even imagine someone being able to understand opposing positions. You certainly don't sound open minded or rational, since you're assuming bigotry could be the only possible root belief for similar policy goals. How you want to react is your business, but again, you should be aware that it's going to impact how effective your fight against thos…

No, I'm not going to imagine anything. You actually have to say what you stand for.

> I have even less for closeted conservatives when I eventually find out.

> I don't tolerate bigotry, tough.

> No, I'm not going to imagine anything.

You just did, man.

I'd be afraid to express my views around you, as anything that approaches conservatism will be labeled as "Bigotry", and therefore "not tolerated".

Whos knows what opinions you are throwing under the bus. Best to not risk it.

It is perfectly rational for someone to not express their opinions around someone who is going to misinterpret them.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#134

Post by johngalt »

pklausler wrote: post #23

One of the problems that we face in the US today is that our two political parties, which once divided the electorate across fault lines of policy or values, now appear to have reshuffled the electorate across epistemologies. I sincerely believe that one party now provides a happier home for those who prefer empirical science.

It is entirely dependent on the subject matter. Talking climate science with republicans is similar to talking about economics with democrats.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#135

Post by johngalt »

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.

You are envisioning employees loudly inserting their politics into the workplace. When in reality it is more like litmus tests that if you don't give the right answer you are ostracized.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#136

Post by gonehome »

AlexandrB wrote: post #130
gonehome wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 s…

I don't think people stick to crazy beliefs because they're not as smart as I am - I think sticking to old/comfortable beliefs is a problem in general with how our minds work and something you have to fight against basically all the time, it's the default behavior.

Part of the way of doing that is trying to evaluate what evidence is available and update how you think accordingly. It's when people refuse to do this that it's a problem (or worse when they think they're doing it, but really they're just trying to come up with 'evidence' for what they already believe to be true).

It should be a struggle towards whatever is true - not trying to prove what you already believe to be true.

I think it's sad that so much time and effort is spent spinning in circles when we could make so much more progress if we were collectively able to fix these issues with how we think.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#137

Post by CalChris »

stale2002 wrote: post #133
CalChris wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'm not going to imagine anything. You actually have to say what you stand for.

> I have even less for closeted conservatives when I eventually find out. > I don't tolerate bigotry, tough. > No, I'm not going to imagine anything. You just did, man. I'd be afraid to express my views around you, as anything that approaches conservatism will be labeled as "Bigotry", and therefore "not tolerated". Whos knows what opinions you are throwing under the bus. Best to not risk it. It is perfectly rational…

Sorry cupcake, but you should be afraid to express your views around me because I will force you to defend them. After y'all voted in Cheeto, no more Mister Nice Guy.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#138

Post by stale2002 »

CalChris wrote: post #137
stale2002 wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have even less for closeted conservatives when I eventually find out. > I don't tolerate bigotry, tough. > No, I'm not going to imagine anything. You just did, man. I'd be afraid to express my views around you, as anything that approaches conservatism will be labeled as "Bigotry", and therefore "not tolerated". Whos knows what opinions you are throwing under the bus. Best to not risk it. It is perfectly rational…

Sorry cupcake, but you should be afraid to express your views around me because I will force you to defend them. After y'all voted in Cheeto, no more Mister Nice Guy.

Or maybe you'll be in a position of power and fire someone for it. Whos knows!

Thats the problem that people are dealing with. That you will incorrectly assume things about what someone believes, and then use whatever organizational power you have against them.

But i guess "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" therefore they deserve to be fired for your incorrect assumptions about their beliefs, right? (even though this is illegal)

There is no way of knowning what you will or will not do or what powers you will or will not use against them.

Post reply on HN