Tim Ferris summed it up well: Silicon Valley also has an insidious infection that is spreading -- a peculiar form of McCarthyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) masquerading as liberal open-mindedness. I'm as socially liberal as you get, and I find it nauseating how many topics or dissenting opinions are simply out-of-bounds in Silicon Valley. These days, people with real jobs (unlike me) are risking their careers to even challenge collective delusions in SF. Isn't this supposed to be where people change the world by challenging the consensus reality? By seeing the hidden realities behind the facades? That's the whole reason I traveled west and started over in the Bay Area. Now, more and more, I feel like it's a Russian nesting doll of facades -- Washington DC with fewer neck ties, where people openly lie to one another out of fear of losing their jobs or being publicly crucified. It's weird, unsettling, and, frankly, really dangerous. There's way too much power here for politeness to be sustainable. If no one feels they can say "Hey, I know it makes everyone uncomfortable, but I think there's a leak in the fuel rods in this nuclear submarine..." we're headed for big trouble
I moved to the bay from D.C. and while the exterior packaging was different, the commonality of positioning amongst the two cities was actually quite similar. In fact, I found more tolerance to alternative viewpoints in D.C. than I ever did in SV. This notion that SV is an easy going place of acceptance is a bit of a facade. You're accepted, if you accept their viewpoints on topics. If you don't, you either keep your mouth shut, or leave.
Damn, SV must be hell then. I fled DC this spring because the political group-think was so oppressive. If you didn't walk around and make a point of being depressed about Trump winning, you were an asshole. The suggestion that Trump is anything but an orange-haired Hitler would make you enemies, even if paired with solid criticism of Trump and his bunch. A lack of fanatical opposition to Trump made me enemies at work, not exaggerating. All Hands Slack chats were filled with anti-Trump news, jokes, and thoughts on a daily basis. It would be no understatement to say that this dominated the office culture. Our CEO (at a tech startup, not a Democrat-aligned non-profit) sent out a pouting email the morning after the election. Every morning I was bombarded with strident political opinions from my deskmates, and you can bet that had I complained to HR, I'd be seen as the problem. I am so, so happy to be out of that place. I am in another city now that is renowned for its liberal politics, and there's none of the stuff I just mentioned. DC is a whole 'nother beast these days.
Speaking as someone that grew up in San Francisco, I wouldn't call it particularly tolerant anymore. At one time when the current political climate wasn't the default, maybe yeah.
So what I would say is the default cultural assumptions have changed from what they used to be and are now diametrically opposed to much of the country in such a way that if you are on the outside looking in, it appears "tolerant" because it is a better place for some groups of people that would be ostracized elsewhere. Meanwhile if you are from the inside looking out, you probably don't see that what you call tolerance and liberalism is in fact just a different kind of intolerance and conservatism because it is not human nature that is different in the Bay, just the goal posts.
Or to put it another way, what seems liberal and/or progressive to others is simply "normal", the "default", sometimes even "traditional" or "conservative" here. Especially in San Francisco, Alameda County and some of the more populous counties (quarter of the pop in LA County alone yo!), if not quite all of the State. The scale is just different. Spend 25 years living here and visiting certain parts of the country really will make you feel like you're in a foreign country because you (hypothetically) and I (actually) grew up in a bubble.
Here are a few examples of the topics I don't want to discuss at work, because my workplace is full of zealots who would accuse me of bigotry and I don't want to get entangled in HR discussions:
- illegal immigration
- importance of "pipeline" on workplace diversity
- effectiveness of company policies to foster diversity
A side effect is that open conversations are now almost silenced in a company which once prided on open culture. People now speak out only in smaller cliques of their friends, and this is having a massively negative impact on company culture.
Illegal immigration is a distracting election talking point. It affects us much less than it is purported to. And I’ve thought that news articles about company diversity are hit jobs to move a stock price.
In any case, these topics have high emotional stakes, but are completely subjective. Unlike talking about your favorite movies, which is also a subjective topic, but with much less emotional investment.
I have to ask; why do you want to talk to your coworkers about this stuff? What are you going to get out of it? Are you trying to feel justified about an opinion you hold? I just have no idea why anyone would want to talk about this with people they have to get along with everyday.
I have a network of conservative tech friends in Seattle and coordinate with various pro-Trump tech individuals around the country.
I think from the comments on here (many done under unattributable usernames) it is clear to see why most stay far under the radar. There is a very real fear of negative career consequences in the tech industry for having views that are mainstream in broad swathes of the country that so enables the tech industry's success.
While some blowback may be manageable for someone with demonstrable skills and few longterm commitments, it has a chilling effect for those with families and mortgages.
And for those who think that none of their peers voted for the US president, I can tell you that you are likely mistaken. For those that think that conservatives can't innovate or fit into the tech industry, I counter that there are very successful people all over the industry, but given that there is little upside and high risk to mentioning it publicly, it is understandable that one would have a different perception.
Oh please, there's a difference between "conservative" and "batshit crazy". If you get up and say you don't think medicine can/should be socialized in America, I don't think you're going to get ostracized at most companies, that's a serious debate and there are many sides. If you say gays shouldn't marry or that CNN is fake news media, yea you're going to get ostracized.
Not because you're conservative, but because you're an idiot and are making your coworkers super uncomfortable. The same would happen if you went around saying "people who wear red jackets are inferior" when one of your team members wears their favorite red jacket to work everyday.
I disagree. I joined a conversation a few years back about gun ownership. I said I support people's rights to own them and in fact I owned one too. The result was an argument about how now because It was known that I'm ok with gun ownership, one of my counterparts now felt threatened at work and requested that i'd be moved. So while I agree there is a difference between batshit crazy and conservative, there's also a difference between batshit crazy and liberal of which there are many on both sides.
Our minds our faliable, it’s definitely a risk owning a gun - to yourself, coworkers, and family. Sure, you’re fine today, but get overworked for a few months or laid off, a bit of mania sets in, and then all of a sudden you’re on the evening news. The Las Vegas shooter had just won a huge jackpot before he committed his crime, people can snap in the weirdest of ways.
Given that workplace violence is a thing that happens, and the high emotions business sometimes gets us in, you definitely made a mistake telling coworkers you own a gun.
No I didn't, it's a legally owned firearm. I'm happy to identify as a firearm owner. I didn't just randomly bring it up, it came up in a conversation that was occurring prior to my joining.
I'll stand there and support your right to identify however you'd like and i'll support your right to express your views as your legal right, but who the hell are you tell me that acceptance should only apply to your stance that I should have just kept my mouth shut?
This right here is the exact behaviors that are driving Conservatives further right and frustrates those of us in the middle or slightly left to start swaying the other way.
Driving a vehicle is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
Taking medications is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
Drinking alcohol is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
Partaking in recreational drugs is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
Partaking in illegal drugs is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
Swimming in a pool is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
Cooking chicken you bought at Whole foods is a risk to yourself, coworkers, and family.
And that could be an attitudinal thing. Why should I care about how someone else personally identifies? Why should I be disparaging about something that will have minimal or no effect on me?
I think this is part of why some conservatives find themselves unwelcome. Being outwardly disparaging toward people does not make you friends.
Why should there be universal condemnation or acceptance?
"The left" is not a spec or rigidly defined ideological canon that all "leftists" conform to. As with "the right", "capitalists", "socialists" or any other political or cultural generalization, actual "leftists" can comprise a spectrum of acceptance or disagreement.
That may be. But I think the left will be even unhappier with Mr. Pence in office.
Remember, Trump was a Democrat for a long while before he was a Republican. (IMHO, he became a Republican solely because it was the easier party to hijack at the time.)
I agree with you, I just said the fact. I don't agree with it. I'm a communist so I don't think the liberal "left" in the US is really a left wing thing. It is more like a pendulum swinging right to right.
Do we base morality on what politicians think is the best stance to get them elected?
The argument isn't that you "have to think this way because the government said so" it's that by airing viewpoints at work you're liking going to cause problems. As much as you might care a gay coworker likely has more reason to care, and they would view it as stomping on their rights.
No, we don't base our morality on what politicians say. But if a mere 4 years ago leaders were 'opposed' to gay marriage, you cannot in good faith or in fairness to any conversation call a person who doesn't support it now crazy.
All I'm saying is that a position, which until the day before yesterday was so mainstream that even a fairly liberal politician in a liberal party agreed with it, is today considered so out of bounds that you may face consequences for publicly stating it.
I think Europeans would laugh at your claim that a progressive Democrat is liberal. Not only that, my parents are ~80 yrs old, life long Republicans, and have always supported gay marriage and women's reproductive rights.
"In interviews, many tech employees and executives said they believed conservative views on issues like tax policy and regulation are welcome in Silicon Valley. But conservative views on social issues like gay marriage, civil rights and immigration meet more resistance ..."
While many of those issues seem like fair game in a (presumed) secular business environment, I don't see how an expressed conservative viewpoint that actively opposes civil or equal rights can be tolerated in a workplace. It is a necessary basis for any sort of collegiality and cooperation.
At the same time, I can imagine people freely saying disparaging things about conservatives (it's hard for me to resist sometimes) that would make for a hostile environment. I'd hope large SV companies could occasionally remind employees of that fact.
The problem, like most in life, is not in the expression of the conservative viewpoints but in the definition and application of 'actively opposing civil or equal rights'.
Some people feel The Wall 'actively opposes civil or equal rights'. Or transgenders in the military. Or etc, etc etc...
Many conservatives feel that conservative viewpoints on hot topic issues are rational decisions. They're often not out to 'actively oppose civil or equal rights'.
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I can say with confidence that I would get fired if I openly exposed my political views at my job, whereas my Liberal counterparts freely discourse their ideas and opinions on a daily-basis without any consequence.
The Tech industry is wildly leftist, with zero tolerance for the conservative ideology.
Do most of your coworkers self-apply the term 'leftist'? If not, why would you call them that? Seems impolite. Especially if they're actually a mix of neoliberal and libertarian technocrats.
Maybe it's just zero tolerance for inaccurate name calling.
If you are talking about your views on tax policy, healthcare, etc, all I can say is that I've never worked anywhere that somebody would be fired or ostracized or anything for their position.
If you are talking about race or gender than yeah, the "conservative" position is terrible and you would rightly face consequences for your awful beliefs.
If you're talking about telling your coworkers that you voted for Trump, well, I don't think that's something that ought to be taboo but he did explicitly embrace the terrible beliefs I mentioned so I think that explicitly renouncing them wouldn't be a bad idea.
If conservatives talk about illegal immigration, they would get ostracized and harassed at tech companies even if their position is not "terrible". Its mainly because liberals/democrats/leftists are very vocal about that issue and drown out sensible discussions which do not toe their ideology.
As a liberal Republican, I completely disagree with your conflation of those terms. I would suggest picking up a dictionary or reading about Adam Smith, the original liberal.
It's true that Eich resigned, under extreme pressure. Is that a good thing? It just underscores my point - that even with legal protections, there still needs to be a cultural shift towards acceptance (or at least tolerance) of people with heterodox views.
Why didn't you search for the phrase I gave and read up? Suits get settled exactly that way, and also get headed off that way before filing. I'm writing in general of course. I am not commenting on my particular situation, note well. Suits also often get settled with various strictures on talking about the details. HTH.
Sorry if I hit a nerve. I can see why it would be difficult.
I'm on the outside, so my the reading I did probably doesn't represent the full situation. I asked that question because I was genuinely curious - the resources I found seemed to indicate that constructive termination could still constitute wrongful termination in CA.
By the way, if you have a specific resource you want me to read, I'd love to have the link.
I'm answering in generalities for legal reasons. It's not a matter of "[hitting] a nerve" so much as negotiated contracts. You should not assume in general (again, not specifying facts about my case) that "wrongful" cannot be negotiated to a settlement, including with terms governing statements parties can make. Labor law != criminal law: https://www.diffen.com/difference/Private_Law_vs_Public_Law
Therefore (again generalizing) if (likely net benefit of winning, adjusted for risk of losing) - (cost of suit) <= (benefit of settlement - lower cost of counsel to get to a settlement), and a similar relation for employer that takes into account PR risk-adusted costs as well, rational-actor parties tend to settle, with money flowing to the exiting employee and conditions binding the parties. This happens often, and is cloaked by non-disclosure terms almost always.
Why do you feel that you need to discuss politics at work? Based on the responses your comment got , it would be a disaster. "think as you like but behave like others"
* Healthcare isn't a right. It's the product of someone's hardwork and as such, you have no "right" to it.
* Making college education free for US citizens is a terrible idea.
* We've taken the idea of "sanctuary cities" way too far.
* Gun control is a bad idea
These are a few conservative ideas that I think plenty of people would be afraid to express in a workplace that is disproportionately filled with ardent "liberals".
Yeah, I mean those aren't necessarily popular opinions. So if you express them you might find a bunch of people who will vigorously argue against you. If that's upsetting to you, I don't know what to say.
I really, really doubt you're going to get fired. Unless you're expressing these opinions in very inappropriate ways. It's a workplace, after all.
I agree with all of those assertions except the one about sanctuary cities because I am an actual liberal (now known in the US as a classical liberal).
because they would get fired or because they would face a unified front of "you're wrong"?
Cause the former is a problem. The latter, meh. If you can't figure out how censor yourself at work that's your problem. I felt like calling out a coworker for recent conduct I think was incredibly petty, immature, and damaging to a relationship with another team. I think he deserves to be called out, but it's just not worth it.
I do think you should be able to say some of this stuff in a casual conversation at lunch, or whatever. You have to be aware of your audience though.
Sure, but discussing any of those wouldn't get you fired out of any reasonable job -- at most it might make your coworkers think less of you, but I don't really see why holding an opinion _should_ protect you from the social (i.e. not job security) consequences of holding it.
However, saying that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far "because immigrants are rapists", as a random example, _should_ perhaps get you fired, especially since it's likely that some of your colleagues are in fact immigrants and saying something like that is a direct insult to them.
I think the state of politics in the US today is such that many (though certainly not all, as you've outlined) "conservative" ideas have strong ties to xenophobia and racism, whereas "liberal" ideas can be more freely discussed because they are about inclusion, rather than exclusion. And that's the way it _should_ be. Saying "I support giving more rights to group X" is not in general harmful to other groups, and is not the moral equivalent of saying "I support taking away rights from group X", which is actively harmful to group X.
> However, saying that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far "because immigrants are rapists", as a random example,
Nice strawman there! I think that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far, that the illegal immigration should be curbed and that democrats are just exploiting this for their political gains. I am also a non-white immigrant myself. But discussing my views openly would definitely get me in a few discussions with HR, if not outright fired.
Not intended as a straw man, but rather as an illustration that the same general opinion ("the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far") should be a perfectly fine (even if unpopular) thing to discuss in the workplace if your opinion and reasoning behind it are not derogatory, but not at all fine to discuss if they are.
But thats the problem. Nowadays, saying "the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far; nations should have full control over their borders; immigration laws should be enforced" would not be a safe thing to say at my workplace.
Then I think your workplace is in the wrong in this situation. Reasoned discussions not based in bigotry/xenophobia/etc, where both sides are respectful, should definitely be acceptable at work -- they definitely are at mine.
That God created this universe.
That marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.
That the right to own and carry a gun is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment.
These and other fundamental Christian world views are very 'unwelcome' in IT on both coasts of the US.
As an atheist I do think there is too many people in tech who have a tendency to shit on religion, without considering anyone else around. I agree, there is no god. Lets not go around calling anyone who believes in it idiots, because no good comes of that.
But I also won't put up with some religious lecture. You're the jerk in that situation.
> That marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman.
You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable.
Do you find your rights to be impeded when you aren't allowed to own or carry a bomb, either? don't pretend everything is equivalent.
The right of two people to have rights and protections under state/federal law regardless of their genders is in no way similar to the right of someone to own a weapon.
> You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable.
I don't agree with his viewpoint, but consider it from the other side.
There's two parts to marriage for a lot of people, and this gets overlooked. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a property arrangement, more or less. You get married, you merge assets, and you use your merged assets to fund your collective livelihoods and hopefully have some children. In the past, you could even take it as a given that across the middle class you would have a mother there to tend to the household economy (gardening, sewing, shopping, etc.) and tend to the children. The father would work a fairly predictable 9-5 job and basically, bring home the bacon. Sure this wasn't the case for everyone, but it was true enough across a vast swathe of the population for long enough that it came to shape the default expectations of our society. Probably it was really only the case for a few generations at most. Familial, social, and even religious ties held people together in a productive fashion.
Then things changed. Never mind why, the real reason why whatever it is doesn't even matter for this discussion, but things changed. Society isn't as stable as it seems, the middle class is shrinking, both parents tend to work now, etc. So the portion of society that could take for granted that their familial, social and religious ties would hold the very fabric of society, or at least their own county together worried that would no longer be the case. Everyone wants what is best for their kids and country, right?
So let's come back around to the second part of marriage: religious ceremony.
Atheists like you and I can freely dismiss that part of marriage, but for a long time, at least in Christian nations as I won't comment on other beliefs, the default view was that when you got married, you were bound in the eyes of God. There are a lot of people that still take that seriously, and it is easy to miss because atheists don't have to care about religious ceremony. Marriage is almost an artifact of the past other than the fact that a lot of our laws concerning property and tax codes are written with the assumption of marriage. Maybe we continue to get married simply because we as people are still so collectively locked in our ways that we still strive to make some kind of ceremony out of it.
Is it irrational that people still hold to that view so seriously though? I wouldn't argue, I mean, I don't have a religion for several reasons but those are besides the point. I think it's irrational, yet so many of the people that make up our society, really the foundation of our nation, hold to their beliefs so strongly, sincerely believe them that simply arguing that it is irrational is entirely besides the point. They have faith, traditions, a moral code, and beliefs that marriage is between One Man and One Woman and while the benefits and tax advantages bestowed upon husband and wife are nice, it is the civil portion, the property arrangement that is almost besides the point. They'll take it rather than leave it, but it isn't the foundation of their marriage.
Rewind a few years ago, and marriage wasn't a civil right that two gender conforming homosexual people had with each other. It was a right granted to them by either statute, constitutional amendment or in the end, a court order from on high from SCOTUS itself. A civil institution.
A civil, material institution treading upon matters spiritual. You don't have to agree, I don't have to agree, but the world I want to live in is one where people can express their viewpoints regardless of whether I agree or you agree or the masses agree. If social liberalism means anything anymore, I would want it to mean that. It is still important to understand that is only a civil rights issue for one side of this debate.
We ban accounts that use HN primarily for political or ideological battle. We also ban throwaway accounts when people create them routinely, as opposed for some specific purpose. Since you've been doing both of these, I've banned this account.
If you said that at work I'd think you had your facts mixed up, but unless you're in the medical profession I have a very hard time believing you'd get fired over it.
(Unless you acted on that belief in a way that hurt a coworker.)
That's because this view is actively harmful to your colleague who does not consider their gender to be binary. This isn't the equivalent of a colleague telling you they believe gender is non-binary, it's equivalent to someone telling you "I know you think you're a man, but my opinion is that in fact you are not a man". Adding "that's just my 2 cents though, and I believe in your right to (wrongly) believe you're a man!" doesn't help -- you've still just told someone that you don't respect them or how they think of themselves, and that your political stance is that they shouldn't have the right to make that decision.
No one is arguing that the OP shouldn't be allowed to _hold_ this opinion, privately and in his own head. I do argue that the _act_ of sharing the opinion with a colleague at work is harmful, since by doing that the OP is revealing that he does not respect the identity of his colleagues, and further strongly implies the OP will do whatever is in his power (by way of voting for political candidates, for example) to limit the ability of his colleagues to have rights based on these identities.
I don't think you have to physically attack someone to be actively harmful to them and their existence.
Which views from 'conservative ideology' would get your fired? I am sure you won't be fired for arguing for fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, or for strong national defense. Gun rights might get you some pushback, but I doubt you would be fired for it. I know so many people in the tech industry who are very pro gun-rights.
Anti-abortion views might get you some pushback, but you probably won't be fired unless you are harassing coworkers about their abortions.
It gets a bit tricky when you get into some other traditional conservative views. The problem is that there are positions shared by conservatives and racists, and while you can certainly hold some of the views without being actually racist, it is tricky.
Anti-immigration stances might get you into trouble if you express them in terms that appear racist. If you say you don't want muslim or mexican immigrants, you are going to find yourself in trouble.
If you are against gay rights, you are going to get into trouble. You can say it is unfair, but if your political views involve wanting to deny rights to your coworkers, you are going to have a problem.
Bottom line, there are certain political views that are just wrong. If you are against rights for some of your coworkers or if you have racist beliefs, you can't expect to not have consequences.
This reminds me of when the James Damore news first broke out and multiple Google hiring managers were openly bragging on G+ about maintaining blacklists of everyone who didn't denounce the diversity memo.
Is "ideological diversity" really a kind of diversity that companies should care about? Party membership isn't a protected class, and Republicans are hardly a persecuted minority during a time when they control all 3 branches of government. Should we be making efforts to be more inclusive of other underrepresented ideologies like creationism, flat-earthism, or geocentrism?
This is entirely the fault of conservatives. There is no such thing as legitimate conservative thought in the US any longer. The entire movement has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians and racist rich people. Aligning yourself with such an ideology rightfully has a serious social cost now.
As a brown person, do you know what my first thoughts of someone who describes themselves as "conservative" are? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. You can't blame people for not wanting to be made uncomfortable in that way.
There are many news outlets that provide high-quality conservative viewpoints. e.g. The American Conservative, Reason, Washington Examiner etc. The insightful and different viewpoints here help me understand an issue better.
Several of my friends are conservatives - and they span ethnicities, religions and economic classes. I find conversations with these folks quite insightful and fun. A bit harder to find these folks in Silicon Valley but not impossible. ps: I'm brown too :)
Do their points of view represent anyone that has their hands on the lever of power in the US? If one were to argue that 'high quality' means that it represents the views and policy of those currently in government, then which publications would you select?
Excellent question. The 3 periodicals I mention above represent a more classical conservative viewpoint, i.e. Paul Ryan rather than Trump. But those two overlap at times so the distinction isn't clear.
What I like is that these sites help me understand the other side of questions like gun rights/control. I may not agree with it but I'm less belligerent about my views because I appreciate their sincere alternative viewpoints.
I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. It’s racism that’s not.
>I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent.
Precisely. We need conservatism. We need that part of our conscience which says "well, hold on a minute", or "hey we can't afford that" in order to function properly as a democracy. It's loss is a tragedy, and the corruption of those ideals over the past 30 years into what it has become is breaking our country.
The problem is that the first group is lumped into the second one. I live in the Midwest, which by all rights is a very conservative region of the country even in the urbanized areas, and conservatives are generally regarded by liberals as bumpkins that accidentally wandered into the city, even when re-iterating their disapproval of racism, sexism, and the alt-right until blue (ha) in the face. This is what's driving classical conservatives into the closet, and potentially causing them to actually embrace the more extremist ideologies.
> The problem is that the first group is lumped into the second one.
Why wouldn't they be? The "crazy" ones aren't being elected by no one. They rose to power because voters embraced them. If you don't want to be lumped in as crazy then quit supporting crazy.
> potentially causing them to actually embrace the more extremist ideologies.
I really, really hate this argument. It's just trying to absolve people of their responsibility for choosing white nationalism and other reprehensible ideas. If you joined up because some arrogant jerk offended you one day then maybe you weren't a very good person to begin with.
Besides, how many liberals do you see pushing hateful ideologies and communism because they are sick of being called arrogant elites?
>Why wouldn't they be? The "crazy" ones aren't being elected by no one. They rose to power because voters embraced them. If you don't want to be lumped in as crazy then quit supporting crazy
I don't disagree that the Republican party has been hijacked. Personally, I am non-partisan and generally will vote for whichever candidates lean more towards a liberal-libertarian platform, be they R or D. Lately, that's been a lot more D than R.
>If you joined up because some arrogant jerk offended you one day then maybe you weren't a very good person to begin with
Hatred and ostracization make people go to very dark places. A lot of people are lumping people who ideologically believe in lower taxes and fewer government services with white supremacists. I'm obviously not condoning people going to those places, but acting like putting these people on blast and calling them awful because their beliefs partially overlap with those of a genuinely awful group of people is at the least not constructive.
The republicans have been marching towards the tea party side of things for a long time. So even if a person is reasonable themselves their is a very good chance they support unreasonable people.
Personally I think who you vote for is a damn good indicator of who you are as a person.
Let's make the sentence read:
" The entire movement has been hijacked by sexual deviants and people who don't want to work for a living. Aligning yourself with such an ideology rightfully has a serious social cost now."
Does it seem more offensive to you now?
Failure to look for the merit in the other person's point of view is a mistake. There are good conservative as there are good liberals. Using inflammatory rhetoric (as the author did) does nothing to disprove one's ignorance of the other person's point of view.
If you can't see that republicans have quite a bit of xenophobia and racism in their ranks then you need to open up your damn eyes. Instead of talking about how it's wrong to feel that way think for a minute about why this person feels that way. People thinking this way is what happens when 10s of millions of people vote for a man who is anti-immigrant, racist, and encourages white nationalists.
Using HN for political battle will eventually get your account banned, especially if you break the civility rules in the process, such as you both did in this nasty partisan spat. All such stuff is unwelcome here, regardless of your or the other person's politics.
I don't disagree with there being a liberal bias in SV companies, I think that's pretty damn obvious.
I'm curious though why such observations are made for SV only, why don't publicly social conservative organizations e.g Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-a etc get asked similar questions? It would be safe to assume that things like same sex marriage, contraception would be considered out of bounds there.
Is it just because of the size/reach of the tech industry ?
Well no one is forced used SV services, people are free not to use them. Also my point was not from a consumer standpoint but more from an employee/media standpoint.
While you (and others) may believe conservatives are fundamentally 'bad' people and Silicon Valley (and the world) would simply be a better place without them, this is short-sighted (amongst other things).
Conservatives and liberals obviously see the world differently. One ways that manifests itself is that conservatives are typically more detail oriented and liberals are typically more creative. As Dr. Jordan B Peterson phrases it: "Each of those different temperamental types needs the other type so economically speaking, for example, we need liberals to start businesses, and we need conservatives to run them." https://vid.me/3Dik
Seems like Silicon Valley would very much suffer in the long term from a lack of multiple viewpoints. Is this not what the call for diversity aims to achieve?
We should be careful not to dehumanize our political opponents. That way lies violence.
I would imagine the amount of Conservatives that are not willing to discuss their views publicly is pretty large.
While not a Conservative, I was unable to discuss what many would view as centrists ideals, without being berated about how I was this or that. Political extremism is a thing on both sides.
I'm a leftist(demsoc), but frankly if they're willing to work without hostility toward their coworkers I am not particularly concerned with their positions on taxes or whatever. In fact I view the idea that someone can be fired because of their political position as a threat to labor rights. Excluding of course any positions relating to protected classes such as gender, age, national origin, disability. If you think your coworker shouldn't have the right to be there and are creating a hostile environment, you're the one that has to go not them. Otherwise yeah I have no problem and have happily worked with those who I believe are fundamentally eroding our democracy :V.
Both sides of that are actually debatable - there are arguments to be made for biological determinism, and thus that your political views are NOT a choice, and some of the people arguing in favor of 100+ genders or transracialism really seem to act like gender and race can be a choice...
I don't know if I'm moving the goal post here, but as far as I know POC and women aren't per definition known for doing the opposite of what made SV successful (-> not conserving old stuff, but trying new and innovative things)
Not being in the US, I have a variety of friends including communists, feminists, social democrats, libertarians, free-market opportunists, and conservative catholics.
But under no circumstances would I legitimise what currently passes as a "conservative" in the US by associating with them.
Just take the current Trump vs all of Britain disagreement as an example: I think Brexit is among the worst ideas, ever. Yet I would never turn down the opportunity for a tea with Theresa May, because we share a fundamental understanding that it's probably a bad idea to endorse xenophobic hate groups by retweeting their fake propaganda.
I'd like to point out that Trump was a Democrat for nearly his entire life, just up until the point when he hijacked the Republican party (against great efforts from the Bush family, Mitt Romney, etc.)
Confusing Donald Trump with a conservative is a mistake.
As for Evangelical conservatives, I'd suggest you have a few conversations with some and then form an opinion. So long as you are respectful and make reasonable assertions, I am sure you'll come away with a different point of view.
I haven't observed it so it's probably a Bay Area/California thing. I'm in the south east and while it's slightly more liberal than the norm for the area most the people are still very capitalist, moderate right wing, and usually traditional social norms.
So yeah if you live in a super liberal place people are going to have a liberal bias. I was born and raised in the south, it has a conservative bias, and I don't pretend that it's magically going to go away. I think if you're aware that your political positions are a far deviation from the norm for your area it's probably wise to not be loud about it. Especially if your position is somewhere along the lines of "My coworker shouldn't be here for reasons that are a protected class". They'll fire you just to CYA, independent of whether they agree with you or not.
