At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated

The idea that there are points of view (not actions or laws but ideas) that warrant violence is a large and growing problem.

It wasn't a great policy before. It's not great now. Hiding who you are to avoid ridicule doesn't solve the problem. If the majority opinion is safe to express, but your opinion isn't, then being forced to hide doesn't actually solve the problem. Even if you hide your views, you may get asked why you don't support the majority's viewpoints.

I found it amusing that a man who was going to take an oath to defend the Constitution thought it was reasonable to call me un-American and try to beat me into silence. He left when I laughed at him instead of fighting back.

I had friends un-friend me on Facebook after my sister married a woman and I posted pictures and congratulations to them. I had colleagues who stopped talking to me after the same. They talk to me now (2 years later), but only professionally, formally. No more informal or loose friendship happening between us apparently.

This shit definitely happens on both sides.

trump is just randomly going from one to another mostly unconsequential decision.

bush went to war, purposefully let torture be instigated (while trump say ok for torture motsly to look tough) and promoted hugh oil conglomerates.. he's also the governor who order the most inmates to be sent to death row

Learn to see the difference between talk and action.

I'm curious if any nation has experimented with a hybrid of direct and representative democracies: people choose their stances on actual issues, and the candidate most matching the spirit of society is elected.

As a liberal atheist who has spent most of his life in the deep red parts of the south, I can assure you that you're wrong.

I hear this. It's frightening how some people can rationalize taking extremely punitive actions in response to encountering mere disagreement or differing identity.

Everyone needs to remember that the people they disagree with are people too, and treat them as they'd like themselves to be treated.

> I think the current level of political discourse is downright dangerous.

I would call it polarization. The discourse is just a consequence of that.

Arguably "good people" don't support nor vote for an individual who openly brags about assaulting women...

...unless you have a different definition of what is considered "good".

/much like christians claim "everything god does is good" - you know, like genocide via a flood...

I find it terrible that when you're only given two options, and both of them suck, choosing one over the other can be seen as such a treason. To me these conversations sound like "You prefer diarrhea to vomiting! I'm never going to sit on your couch again!"

> Because it's hard to unanimously and unequivocally identify those who are intolerant as such. Owing to the beguiling nature of language and rhetoric, the intolerant can thrive and propagate by arguing that they're not in fact intolerant, and appealing to "free speech". This seems to be the MO of this so-called "alt-right" stuff; legal or constitutional barriers are almost impossible to define or enforce.

That is creepy to me. You have the ingredients of a witch hunt.

"can't easily distinguish them" aka "anyone could be a witch", "can't use legal methods to attack or 'regulate' them" aka "something... must be done", that's what I'm reading.

There's no evidence that the altright as a group are plotting to murder other citizens. The reverse, threats to do violence to altrighters, I see that on a daily basis without looking for it online e.g. the "punch a nazi" meme. Going from that to "beat up a nazi" to injury/death is not a leap.

And who are they? It's a large collection of loosely connected right wing groups. A full list would take several A4 pages. Most of them hold beliefs little different to our grandparents or possibly great-grandparents in the case of the monarchists. Anybody to the right of the Republican party could be 'altright'. This isn't true but that seems to be how most people have built their classifier.

It's easy to prove that because if you ask (as Trump did to a reporter) people to define the group, they don't know how to do it. I think there is a definition but nobody in the media has mentioned it AFAIK, it's not something that is well understood and so "Nazis!". That nazi flag at the charlottesville rally? A singular item unless the photographers were holding out on us. There are lots of photographs and it's this one guy walking around with a nazi flag.

There seems to be a curious motte and bailey argument going on here. The altright is a relatively small set, but in the media and twitter they are either a fringe sect of right wing lunatics or they are an all pervasive threat to society. It can't be both. Not unless you have an infinitely extensible definition that you can be using for ulterior political purposes.

Unfortunately, it will take years (if ever) for most people to realize this.

That's a bit of a point towards what libertarians and conservatives (but, to be clear, not alt-righters) think. If fewer issues were national and more were left up to individuals, even, you wouldn't have to lament what the national government does. You could move to a more sane place. And your opinion would matter more in a smaller jurisdiction.

Interestingly, we're seeing this symptom happening more in tech companies, which are not the government but they certainly govern in some respects, at least the things they are responsible for. There is starting to be appetite in conservative and libertarian circles for discussion about what to do about unelected corporate bureaucracies having this sort of power.

There IS a difference between the political parties.

All you have to do is look at their voting records on key issue. Here's a comprehensive breakdown, for proof:

https://np.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/6pc5qu/democrats...

I can understand feeling this way, but do you see this as a response that improves the situation? Is your impulse to silent action just that it's easier than engaging, or is there a positive outcome of silently leaving that would not be also achieved by explaining your reasons for leaving?

Engaging in a discussion of why you feel the way you do seems like it might have the best chance of a possible outcome. If their response is that are in favor of our behavior at Abu Graib that you despise, then I can understand giving up and leaving.

(Ironically, this responseless post was voted below zero when I found it, and dead from user flagging when I tried to reply, which I think is equivalent to the "silently leaving" approach espoused by the author. I'd be interested to hear from those who flagged it why they did so.)

This is a fair question at this point. I would posit answering this and also answering "What does liberal mean?" would be great things to address in high school political science classrooms, however it doesn't seem to be in the curriculum. We've had the better part of 30 years where media pundits have been doing their best to conflate these terms with concepts which are tangential at best or completely unrelated at worst.

First, I think it's important to understand that concepts like "conservative" and "liberal" refer to overarching political philosophies, and the actual ideology a person holds that describes themselves as such is probably a subset. Since we're focused on conservatism, I'll provide examples from there. So, in this case there may be broad differences in beliefs about particular political issues between an evangelical conservative Republican and a Libertarian, however both are conservatives. This type of difference arises with the concept of liberalism as well. Fundamentally, the liberal/conservative distinction is a line, and therefore each person falls at some point on that line within a broad spectrum.

Second, let's address the most simplistic explanation of the overarching philosophy, and then we'll get into some specifics of how this might manifest when applied to an individual. Conservatism is effectively a combination of three ideas:

1. Individuals know best about their own situations and working together can improve things better than a central authority (i.e. "government sucks at doing things" 2. Broad social and political change should be infrequent and considered fully, and therefore an adhesion to our founding charter (Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution) is critical to correct governance (i.e. "we've done it this way and it's worked out so far, why change?") 3. In order to ensure that both of the above are true it's essential to have a small central government which is only empowered and funded minimally at the bare necessity to achieve those general aims (i.e. "the best government is a small government")

Third, it's important to understand how much upbringing and experiences in life affect an individual's political ideology and the philosophy from which it is derived. It is no mistake or surprise that cities tend to be more liberal and rural locations tend to be more conservative in the United States. It's a result of somewhat unintended consequences of democracy conceptually and the realities of optimizing for bureaucratic efficiency. We know that basic rules of optimization (the Pareto principle) says that 80% of the job requires 20% of the work. This is true of many things when it comes to urban/rural divides, all the way down to broadband Internet connectivity. Democracy in its simplest form becomes rule by the majority, so larger concentrations of people (cities) hold more sway.

These two items result in people inhabiting rural areas being felt that not only do they not have a voice but that nobody cares to help them with their problems. The response to this is "clinging to traditions" because those traditions are by and large what has helped get them and their families through hard times for many years. In a fit of irony, the more underfunded the government the more heavily the government focuses on cities as that becomes the most rational pathway.

Finally, conservatism is rooted in two additional beliefs that are about the conduct of a person individually. That is, that generally everyone should be treated as an individual rather than via group identity (individualism as a loose philosophical base) and that because of this personal responsibility and hard work are the most important factors in success. This is one reason why people with conservative beliefs are less likely to approve of social safety nets, even though they would likely qualify as beneficiaries. The philosophy includes a belief structure of the self that would refuse the help out of shame at personal failure, and at the same time would judge others as failing for taking that help. In this mindset all that matters is taking responsibility for your self, including the outcome/reaction to a bad situation, and working hard to better things.

I've touched briefly on a lot of different things, and I've provided basically no sources for these statements. I'd like to write something much more thorough, but the reality is it'd be entirely too lengthy and I should be doing work right now. The topic is very complex, political ideologies themselves are complex, and this is one reason why I find it distasteful when someone is painted in broad strokes because of their political ideology (regardless of what that ideology is). Hopefully this comment is helpful to the discussion though.

Also I think lowered emotional connection to the issues can actually be a huge benefit to understanding them rather than just "feeling" what side to pick.

So maybe you aren't a sociopath. :)

Your conversation leading to upset is based in the assumption that the coworker already shares your worldview in regard to the Iraq war. It's one I share too, so I can see why that'd be automatic, but I've met and known people who fought in Iraq. They didn't exactly seem ashamed!

Yeah, but you'll always have rationalization on why one side thinks it's okay: "It's okay in my case because I'm intolerant of intolerance" "It's okay in my case because I'm bigoted against bigotry"

Proof that you did not grow up in a very religious community.

Odd. Just an observation: conservatives in the US have a commonly used name for that - RINO - Republican in Name Only - and there is no equivalent name among liberals.

Most of my views sit closer to the middle than either pole - but I can't actually discuss this with any of my "liberal" friends. If I say anything that isn't a complete regurgitation of a leftist facebook meme, I'm suddenly an "alt-right sympathizer" (real quote). It's made it so that whenever politics comes up at all I just check out of the conversation. It's hard because I really do enjoy debating and talking about politics, but nobody wants to debate anymore. Everyone wants to be correct and shame the other side into changing their views.

Do those people have a right to take action to negatively impact your career/livelihood/ability-to-provide-for-your-family because of your political views?

I don't like religion for example and would like organized religion to be illegal in my country. If I went on TV and said this I bet this would be a very unpopular opinion and people would most likely send me tons of death threats. I think this mentality is stupid and if you are upset the correct assement is not being a child about it but actually proving me wrong by arguments and facts.

Sure you are. You see someone vote for Trump and immediately assume it must be because they're an evil, ethically flawed person who inexplicably hates love, sunshine and puppies, whereas perhaps they mostly care about taxes. You even did it in this post. Your thinking is knee jerk and shallow, and it's people like you that are causing the problems in the first place.

This has always piqued my curiosity -- would you mind explaining? Why is this such a deep tenet that I hear it so often as justification for shunning people? Apparently, there is something egregious about "treating people differently" because of "how they were born." What is wrong about this? Can you make this statement more concrete? How are the following "treatments" egregious?

* Someone is born deaf, so his parents give him care related to his disability, which is different compared to what they would have done otherwise.

* Someone was born with a great vocal range, so people encourage them to become a singer.

* Someone is born with great mathematical abilities, so later in life they are top-pick by quantitative companies, which pay them extra for the value they are expected to deliver.

* Someone has many insecurities and a history of nervous breakdowns and psychological damage, so we don't give them a high-stress job (for instance, the military doesn't hire them).

It's almost like you are purposely trying to rile people up

Second, I work in tax policy. There is absolutely hate between many people who disagree on taxation.

I would love to hear from some third-party voters about how they were treated by the left after the 2016 election.

I sure am. I think import taxes should be raised so that workers in the western world aren't competing in a race to the bottom with the third world. Somehow over the last few years this has come to mean that I'm a racist, uneducated redneck. The left have abandoned the working class.

After all, these are boomers' children.

Republicans: extreme right (slight adjustment: closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons)

Democrats: extreme right (slight adjustment: (ever so slightly more) open borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons)

Libertarians: extreme right

Even the bloody US communist party does not want to abolish markets. Think about how crazy that is.

On the borders point of view, a traditional leftist (one from the 70s or 80s) might even say that the republicans are clearly to the left, politically, of the democrats. Why ? Closed borders protect the rights, and increase living conditions and wages of laborers. Or, as we might say today, of "the 99%".

But yes, those same closed borders will make your iPads more expensive. A leftist should not care.

I probably am. With the "golden calves" point, I meant that there are specific topics that are adhered to religiously, and any attempt to discuss them produces a reflexive negative reaction. I'm not even talking about extreme ideology, I'm talking about things like the Google memo, which, although it did have some points that didn't really stand (and which should have sparked discussion, as the memo intended), didn't merit the shitstorm that ensued, in my opinion.

I see this in various friends of mine, when we discuss, for example, hiring quotas. Personally, I generally consider hiring quotas a bad practice, and discussed this with a friend, who is heavily in favor of them. However, when I told him about how my sister got passed over for hiring in favor of a male competitor as a result of affirmative action (lawyers here are overwhelmingly female), I could sense that my friend didn't agree with it either. It felt like his opinion wasn't "minorities should have an advantage", but rather "this particular group of people should have an advantage even where they're the majority". That strikes me as a fundamentally non-rational position.

Another point is that I feel that if you're a white, middle-class male, you can basically never be right. If someone puts you down, you can't complain because there are other people who are less privileged than you. It's the "starving children in Africa" argument.

Take all this with a grain of salt, though, as the society I live in isn't like this. All of the above is what I gather from talking to my american friends and colleagues, so I may be off the mark or wrong in many things.

That's assuming it's done during work hours. If done outside it may still be an issue if it starts to effect the working relationship.

That's the reason that I never attend work social events outside of work hours (Christmas parties, etc). If nothing else it's an unpaid imposition on my free time.

As the person whose post that was deleted mentioned, this is effectively the same type of argument as saying: "well, you know what will happen if you wear a sexy short skirt alone late at night".

In either case you don't deserve violence.

Instead we talk about changing behaviors.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Political business monocultures have been a thing since forever. Dial the clock back a little and you have bosses pressuring you to campaign for Nixon. Dial it forward again and you have CEOs starting meetings with prayer. Dial it forward to today where one dude gets fired for arguing Nazi race science, and suddenly we all have to chat.

I don't care why you think minimum wages should be low because everywhere it is trash. I don't care what social issue you believe should dominate because every conservative city has trash culture. I can think of a single conservative idea I'd want implement and I think it's a weird cognitive dissonance that you believe that B.S. but would move all the way to the most liberal city in the world instead of one with those stupid ideas.

Since when is Boston in a 'red state'?

Austin is in a red state, but it's not a conservative place.

Not really. This only works if your opinions are part of the current zeitgeist. If not, then nobody will really care what some loner is hurt by, and will probably just avoid talking to you, period.

> At a certain point, people do need to be told to grow a thicker skin.

OK, but that doesn't work. It only makes people angrier and even more determined to exclude you.

If someone, in your place of business, says "what you just said was hurtful and offensive", then yes, I think maybe you shouldn't say it. Or at least take pause and consider why what you said may be hurtful.

None of that prevents your ability to say what you want outside the office.

* Your boss parading his religion around and making you feel othered, while probably legal, is uncool.

* Though I would be remiss if I didn't point out that across America, it's by and large the Christian viewpoint that's flaunted at employees. I feel bad for you, but I'm also happy that you've been given an opportunity to understand why this is bad.

* You're protected from being _discriminated against_ based on his religious beliefs.

* That law being "paraded" is the one that protects you from your boss discriminating against you based on his religious beliefs.

(I understand that "Christian" and "Buddhist" are very broad categories, and that there are myriad forms contained within each of them...)

Because again there are real-world consequences, like being considered a family member if your loved one's in a hospital, or getting access to death benefits if your loved one dies in the line of duty, or whatever.

But that's not what one of the two mainstream parties is saying: they're saying, "traditional marriage, and the rest of you can go sit on a fence."

This stuff gets personal for so many people so quickly because, in effect, one political party is telling a lot of folks that their humanity is lesser or less deserving of access to government than the rest of us.

How do you not take that personally (and make social choices based on), if you're in that group that's being told they should have less access to government?