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

81–90 of 138 posts

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#81

Post by subsection1h »

BeetleB wrote: post #40
gonehome wrote: post #9

"John: If I walked into work with a "Make America Great Again" hat, there would be repercussions. Quite a few people would take it as a personal affront, and I would expect to be out of the company within weeks, if not a month." If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just categorizing them as stupid). Is this reall…

I think it is reasonable to question their competency. I think we all do it to an extent with coworkers. The mistake is concluding it based on this type of scant information. You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than the information you gleaned from that hat. >If someone walked in with a young earth creatio…

why would you question his abilities?

Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence.

You mention scientists having stupid beliefs. Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools. Our tools are obviously imperfect; thus, imperfect observations are made and imperfect explanations can form as a result.

Biblical literalists, on the other hand, don't even try to ensure that their beliefs are supported by empirical evidence.

People have argued that this behavior of biblical literalists is limited to issues relating to their religious beliefs only, so as long as their professional responsibilities don't encompass issues relating to their religious beliefs, there's no problem.

Unfortunately, the beliefs of biblical literalists encompass a wide range of issues. If I run a renewable energy company, do I really want to take a chance by hiring a biblical literalist who might now, or someday, believe that his unsubstantiated god wants humans to use fossil fuels[1] or that climate change isn't real because his unsubstantiated god promised to not flood the Earth[2]? No, thanks, I think I'll pass.

[1] http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/20/trumps-epa-chief-charts-ne...

[2] https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/shimkus-cites-genesis...

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#82

Post by justin66 »

notconservative wrote: post #66
hasbroslasher wrote: post #45

I've worked places (not in tech) where I was not allowed to talk about my support for Barack Obama for fear of being shouted down, mocked, or forced to listen to racist diatribes about his history. I have been on the other side of this kind of bullshit. I moved from the small, Midwestern town that harbored these people and their insane beliefs to a liberal, coastal city that "gets" me a little more. I'm happier for i…

I did that recently, moved from the Bay Area to a red state. But, what about the concept of engaging with and challenging people who have different beliefs? People don't really change their minds when you call them a racist, fire them, etc. When I am talking to a liberal who I know wont try to cause problems for me (like getting me fired), I will ask lots of questions. Why do you believe X? What facts support that op…

> But, what about the concept of engaging with and challenging people who have different beliefs?

What about not doing it at work, since that is not what anybody is there for?

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#83

Post by hasbroslasher »

majormajor wrote: post #64
hasbroslasher wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem, of course, is that there's no way to tell from outward appearances what someone believes. A good example of this is the appropriation of Satanic imagery in rock music: few of these bands are theistic or LaVeyan Satanists, most of them are just doing it to send a message. The connotation of pentagrams and upside down crosses is "watch out, I'm evil, I like evil things, etc". Conservative Christians, howev…

I completely agree that trolling your coworkers is not good behavior, and I also oppose the idiots playing nazi for similar reasons, as it's bad for the level of public discourse. But I don't think saying "I think we should be restricting immigration from some areas so we don't end up with isolated, un-integrated communities that might lead to extremism[1] like elsewhere" fits the same bill, even though my personal a…

I've actually come to hate the "whine about Trump lunch". After a while it's just rehashing old truths and there's no novelty in the discussion. Just weird, random venting. Then again, I do have coworkers who have been publicly called terrorists because of their race. To them, Trump represents a much greater evil than he does to me, because he literally does that kind of thing on television. To people with illegal Mexican family members, he literally is suggesting that we should split their family apart. It's not as much about conservatism broadly as it is about this one specific guy who is poorly behaved and downright mean.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#85

Post by RightMillennial »

bllguo wrote: post #79

People pretend it's just a disagreement in political opinion. There's obviously a line here. "Racial purity" was a political stance of the Nazis. Yet espouse Nazi beliefs in the workplace and you'll be rightfully attacked. You can't hide behind "it's just politics" forever.

Godwin's law triumphs again.

I am sick of this gross, disingenuous accusation that all Conservatives must be Nazis. Conservatives are not Nazis, do not espouse Nazi beliefs, and downright reject Naziism. Just because there is some fringe group that is labeled "right" (or "alt-right") on the extremely vague political spectrum that may have Neo-nazi members, does not mean there is any remote commonality with Conservatives.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#87

Post by lambdaphagy »

UncleSlacky wrote: post #59
lambdaphagy wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"It's not because of politics, it's because my political opponents are objectively dumb."

This, but unironically.

Among the very smartest people I know, I count both Trump supporters and anyone-but-Trump supporters. If you don't know any smart people who disagree with you, consider the possibility that you may be living in a kind of intellectual Mauritius.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#88

Post by RightMillennial »

subsection1h wrote: post #81
BeetleB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is reasonable to question their competency. I think we all do it to an extent with coworkers. The mistake is concluding it based on this type of scant information. You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than the information you gleaned from that hat. >If someone walked in with a young earth creatio…

why would you question his abilities? Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence. You mention scientists having stupid beliefs. Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools. Our tools are obviously imperfect; thus, imperfect observations are made and imperfect explanations can form as a result. Biblical literalists, on the other hand, don't…

So you're saying that you would reject otherwise qualified candidates based on their religion (a protected class in the U.S.), which is illegal?

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#89

Post by BeetleB »

subsection1h wrote: post #81
BeetleB wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it is reasonable to question their competency. I think we all do it to an extent with coworkers. The mistake is concluding it based on this type of scant information. You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than the information you gleaned from that hat. >If someone walked in with a young earth creatio…

why would you question his abilities? Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence. You mention scientists having stupid beliefs. Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools. Our tools are obviously imperfect; thus, imperfect observations are made and imperfect explanations can form as a result. Biblical literalists, on the other hand, don't…

>Scientists develop evidence-based explanations of phenomena through experimentation using available tools.

In matters of their expertise. I'm guessing your fellow coworker is not a biologist.

If you think most scientists apply this to all their beliefs, then I think you should spend more time amongst them. Virtually every physicist I worked with in a top 10 school had some stupid belief that was easily invalidated with a few days of research. For me to judge their analytical abilities based on silly beliefs they have would be saying more about my abilities than theirs.

Re: Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives

#90

Post by creaghpatr »

mfringel wrote: post #43
BeetleB wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them from the country. That's essentially saying that people have to agree with the whole platform or none of it. As an example, there are many liberals who voted for Obama and did not agree with all aspects of the platform (healthcare reform or military policies). Would wearing a "Yes, we can" shirt/hat be offensive, then? That kind of argument seems v…

Your elected officials own the messaging on your political brand. You don't actually get a choice on this one. If I have to get a read on someone before I directly interact with them, their wearing of a MAGA hat will give me a bunch of useful going-in assumptions, just like any other political insignia worn as clothing.

That’s textbook bigotry, and you recognize it yourself as you gleefully assert “You don’t actually get a choice”

The burden is on you to “give him a choice”

Post reply on HN