
At liberal tech companies, those who disagree on politics say they’re isolated - sillypuddy
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-05/the-lonely-lives-of-silicon-valley-conservatives
======
chrisabrams
I grew up in Texas but worked in Silicon Valley for a few years. One of the
toughest adjustments was going from a small conservative town to a major
liberal populace. It was astonishing the number of people who got angry _at
me_ for having a different opinion then they did.

At one workplace I saw two coworkers get into a fist fight because the liberal
was "offended" that the conservative differed on a viewpoint.

Go to Texas and I'm sure you can find the opposite if you are looking for it.
It's just a shame that we're letting society create the lens that we want to
see, and we push things out that don't fit into our comfy bubble blanket.

Edit: To clarify what people got angry at me most: I told them I voted for
Bush. It was simply that statement, nothing more.

~~~
austenallred
I moved to San Francisco from a small, deeply red town. I'll just say this - I
think even that small town would be more tolerant of liberals than I felt when
I worked in San Francisco, and I'm not even really that conservative (just
economically). The leadership at the company was very reasonable, but the
politically active folks terrified me, and didn't just think that those that
held conservative viewpoints were misguided, but that they were _actively
evil_. There's a big difference.

I didn't vote for Trump, but I know many, many good people that did. I made
the mistake of mentioning that once and somehow that turned me into a pro-
Trump spokesperson. I can do that for the sake of a rational conversation, but
I somehow ended up being the Trump supporter spokesperson despite the fact
that I can't stand the guy.

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

~~~
plandis
In my opinion, some of the policies of the Republican Party seem downright
evil to me. Restrict the civil rights of gays and Muslims (Trump himself
stated that he was going to start a Muslim ban, he asked people to make it
legal but the intent was very clear and stated by Trump several times: Muslim
ban). They also want to restrict information on the internet which seems
pretty evil to me (modern day book banning). They want to deport kids who have
lived in the US their whole lives through no fault of their own.

~~~
austenallred
I don't agree with those policies, but can you imagine any non-evil reason a
rational person would hold those beliefs?

~~~
taylodl
Fear. Fear of the other. Fear of a widening disparity between the haves and
have-nots - and they're increasingly in the have-not category. Fear that their
children won't be able to do as well or better than they did. Fear. And Donald
Trump expertly capitalized on that fear while Hillary chose to ignore it.
Trump won. I'm not convinced we progressives/liberals fully understand this
because we're still ignoring this fear.

~~~
AmIFirstToThink
Just Fear, or fear of risks materializing?

The risk materialized for victims of terrorism.

The risk materialized for victims of drug gangs.

The risk materialized for victims of illegal aliens committing crimes
including identity theft.

The risk materialized for victims of outsourcing. The risk materialized of
well paying manufacturing jobs disappearing.

It's wasn't fear, it was the materialized risk. Many voted for Obama
overcoming fear, choosing hope. But they realized you can't just choose hope,
you have to go and bend reality to be what you want it to be. And they put a
bend in flow of reality, choosing Trump.

The elite fail to sympathize with their own countrymen in peril, because
having compassion for your fellow countryman means you were being a
'xenophobe'. That label is not very vogue in elite circles.

I, for one, am glad that the risk of Trump being elected materialized.

------
nxsynonym
>>“Work is work, and not everything needs to be about politics,” he said.
While he sees liberal colleagues who sit nearby don’t seemingly need to filter
their comments, he’s decided it’s not worth engaging, adding “I don’t want to
be known as that guy who wants to argue with everybody.”

As someone who falls on the Liberal side of the spectrum, this bothers me more
than almost anything else regarding modern day politics. If you fall in line
with the "right" (left) side, you are allowed to say any number of
disparaging, mean, hateful, or ignorant comments without fear of consequence -
as long as it's aimed at the political right-wing. If you mention you are a
conservative or hold conservative views, you are aligned with the worst of the
worst and anything you say is inherently wrong.

The liberal echo chamber is just as bad, if not worse, than the conservative's
version of the same thing. I don't think work is ever the correct place to
discuss political views in depth, but I can't imagine feeling like I can't
express any view without fear of being downright hated.

~~~
koolba
> As someone who falls on the Liberal side of the spectrum, this bothers me
> more than almost anything else regarding modern day politics. If you fall in
> line with the "right" (left) side, you are allowed to say any number of
> disparaging, mean, hateful, or ignorant comments without fear of consequence
> - as long as it's aimed at the political right-wing. If you mention you are
> a conservative or hold conservative views, you are aligned with the worst of
> the worst and anything you say is inherently wrong.

It has a name: _double standard_

I like to think of it like weak minded people who love to dish out insults but
accuse you of being the most indecent person on the planet if you repeat their
exact words back to them.

> The liberal echo chamber is just as bad, if not worse, than the
> conservative's version of the same thing.

I'd lean towards worse. I don't recall anyone attempting to publicly shame me
for not being "conservative enough". I'd wager that most liberals have
encountered some version of that.

~~~
justin66
> I'd lean towards worse. I don't recall anyone attempting to publicly shame
> me for not being "conservative enough". I'd wager that most liberals have
> encountered some version of that.

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.

~~~
ikeyany
They're called limousine liberals/champagne socialists.

~~~
justin66
> limousine liberals

Oh, thanks, THAT is one that I had heard and subsequently forgotten.

------
staticelf
Honestly, I am not the least surprised. I don't know if anyone is really.
Because never before has there been so much hate towards simply holding
different opinions.

People actively share "if you like x you can remove me as your friend" shit on
facebook, companies fire people for expressing their political views and media
companies "choose a side" more then ever. And don't tell me Google isn't. Just
look at Youtube with their new anti-free speech rules that they enforce in
restricted mode and the new demonitazation for content. Look at their search
engine. If you swap to DuckDuckGo you will instantly see the bubble you were
in and the many results that are not shown.

This is not really unique to USA or a single company like Google, it's
happening within EU and other companies as well. This is coming from me, who
probably would in the US be called a communist by conservatives :)

~~~
AndrewDucker
If someone is "simply holding different opinions" that people should have
lesser rights, or be treated differently because of how they were born, then
we shouldn't really be surprised that people are upset by that.

I'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of import
taxes. I'm seeing it because they're backing politicians who are actively
causing harm to real human beings.

~~~
peoplewindow
_I 'm not seeing hatred towards people for arguing over correct levels of
import taxes_

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.

~~~
plandis
How is it knee-jerk and shallow? If you voted for Trump you either directly
support Trump's social policies or you don't think they were abhorrent enough
to not vote for him.

~~~
lkbm
I'm not pro-life, but I feel like if I thought abortion was _actually murder
of babies_ , I think I'd probably hold my nose and vote for whoever had the
best chance of ending that practice. (Though, I also believe that would be
Clinton--banning abortion is less viable than proving effective sex ed, and
probably not _hugely_ more effective.)

Similarly, if I had spent much time in Libya, I might consider holding my nose
and voting for the candidate who _didn 't_ work hard to create that situation.
(Again, I will grant that situation was going wrong without our involvement,
but we're good at making things worse.)

I voted for Clinton because I agree with most of her policies, and think she's
immensely qualified, but I keep hearing "if you voted for Trump, that means
you didn't consider his statements disqualifying" But it doesn't--it could
just mean you think the other candidate had stuff that was _more_
disqualifying.

It's not absurd to consider bombing people worse than _saying_ sexist and
racist shit. It seems like a lot of Trump voters thought Trump's worst aspects
were "just talk".

There wasn't an option for "Clinton without the interventionism" on the
ballot. Similarly, there's no "Trump without the sexism/racism" option.

I will grant that most of them didn't have "Clinton bombed Libya" as their
justification for their Trump vote. Abortion, though, I think is a real reason
for a lot of religious people.

I don't think my vote for Clinton should be taken to mean I'm okay with the
positions she pushed for in North Africa and the Middle East, and that means
_also_ not declaring Trump voters were necessarily okay with his crap either.

~~~
plandis
> But it doesn't--it could just mean you think the other candidate had stuff
> that was more disqualifying.

That seems like a false dichotomy. There were third party candidates. Plus,
you can always choose not to vote.

~~~
humanrebar
There was no pro-life candidate on the ballot that wasn't Trump.

~~~
ubertaco
Evan McMullin. I know this, because I voted for him.

~~~
humanrebar
He was only on the ballot in 11 states.

------
StavrosK
I don't think it's even just conservatives, anyone who has an even slightly
different opinion than the golden calves US libertarian society has set up is
shunned. It's closer to religion at this point.

I consider myself liberal, but (and?) I disagree on various topics, mostly on
affirmative action. However, if you think that introducing more bias is a bad
way to solve existing bias, you're a racist.

It's not "I disagree with you", it's "your opinion is different from what I
adhere to so I won't even consider it" on very specific topics, and my
opinions aren't even that far from the rest of the ideology. I can certainly
see how it'd make people with wildly different opinions feel isolated.

~~~
LyndsySimon
> than the golden calves US libertarian society has set up is shunned

This doesn't make any sense to me - as an (extreme) libertarian, I see very
little progress on that front. The Democrats and Republicans have each used
the libertarian "brand" when it has suited them, but neither have implemented
any actual libertarian positions in my lifetime, at least not that I can
recall.

Out of curiosity, are you perhaps viewing American politics from the
perspective of someone accustomed to European politics?

~~~
candiodari
No, he looks at it like left and right. From a European perspective American
politics are simple:

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.

~~~
azey47
That's an interesting perspective.

I know the left/right spectrum has many definitions, and there is little
consensus on them, but I think this captures the essential philosophical and
ideological distinctions:
[http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-
content/...](http://www.pocatelloshops.com/new_blogs/politics/wp-
content/uploads/2015/08/Political-Spectrum-Essentialized6.jpg)

So by my measure, both Republicans and Democrats are in the middle leaning
left - both supporting various forms of rights violations. Libertarians are
further right, advocating a lot of good rights-protecting policies, but often
for the wrong reasons - so they're not consistent in the policies they
promote.

Also, "closed borders, mostly for laissez-faire economic reasons" doesn't
really make sense, as that's an explicitly anti-laissez-fare policy (if you
understand laissez-fare as "abstention by governments from interfering in the
workings of the free market.", as it's most commonly meant).

~~~
TheCoelacanth
That is an absurdly incorrect definition of left/right wing. The original use
of left and right wings was that the right wing supported the French monarchy
while the left wing opposed it, but under your definition supporters of an
absolute monarchy would be far left.

~~~
azey47
Sure, historically that is true, but that historical usage doesn't capture
that, philosophically and ideologically - absolute monarchy and communism just
aren't that different - both rely on subjugation of the individual's rights to
some authority (a monarch in one case, and society in another).

The historical, and common left/right distinction is even more absurd when you
consider that socialism is considered left-wing, and fascism is considered
right-wing. Where does that leave Nazism? Centrist?

What I like about the spectrum put together by the Objective Standard is that
it essentializes the ideological distinctions between these movements, as
viewed from the perspective of "degrees of respect for / violation of
individual rights".

I am well aware that it's not the way most people understand the terms left-
wing and right-wing, but to be frank, most people DON'T understand the terms,
because they're not conceptually consistent in the slightest.

------
Overtonwindow
“Before it was, ‘I don’t agree with you,’ but now it has evolved into this new
thing that is much more aggressive, ‘don’t even say something that is counter
to what I believe,’”

This sums up rather well what I believe is a new era of righteous indignation
in America. This is not isolated to just America, or Americans, but it's not
something we've really had to deal with before. That righteous indignation
manifests itself in how we react to people we disagree with, whether it's over
a parking space, or something someone else does somewhere in the world that we
don't like. The new belief is not "I disagree with you, go away" it's now "I
disagree with you, and I'm going to do everything in my power to hurt you,
destroy your reputation, get you fired from your job, and cause you as much
pain as I can, likely from a distance." It borders on a collective superiority
complex.

As someone who has worked in Congress, now as a lobbyist, I think this began
with the leadership of both parties. No longer do our elected officials find
way to reach common ground on public issues. Instead, both parties, their
leadership, and through their public relations and voter base, have turned to
a tactic of "attack, defame, and destroy." Washington has become dysfunctional
because of this righteous indignation, and it has permeated down to everyone
else, made exponentially possible by the internet.

I wish there was an easy solution, but I don't see one.

~~~
ikeyany
The phrase you're looking for is "cultural hegemony"[1]:

 _' The mode of being of the new intellectual can no longer consist of
eloquence, which is an exterior and momentary mover of feelings and passions,
but in active participation in practical life, as constructor [and] organizer,
as "permanent persuader", not just simple orator.'_

[1] -
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony)

------
tboyd47
My question is, why do all of a person's co-workers need to know their
political affiliation?

You can choose what aspects of yourself you want to reveal and conceal from
people at work. For example, I don't reveal my religious beliefs to people at
work unless someone asks me, which rarely happens. Politics is much the same.

> He showed coworkers emails he exchanged with Ivanka Trump after he mailed
> her photos he took at the Republican convention, and on election night, he
> texted colleagues snapshots from the floor of Trump’s victory party in New
> York City.

This person sounds like they're trying to rub their political views in
everyone else's face.

~~~
empath75
"Don't talk about politics at work" has always been sound advice.

~~~
thescribe
At the many companies I've worked at there has always been one side that
doesn't think this applies to them.

------
kbart
What I find strange and what keeps getting repeated in this thread is that if
you don't agree on certain points of currently popular liberal trends, you are
automatically being called "conservative" or even worse (bigot, racist, sexist
etc. - you name it). I call myself liberal (I agree that all people are equal
and nobody should tell how anybody lives, as long as it doesn't harm others),
but I don't agree with some (maybe even most) of methods of current liberal-
left trends. For example, just starting a discussion that artificial
minorities/sex quotas in workplace does next to nothing solving a root cause
of the problems is enough to start being called racist/sexist in some circles.

~~~
Chaebixi
> What I find strange and what keeps getting repeated in this thread is that
> if you don't agree on certain points of currently popular liberal trends,
> you are automatically being called "conservative" or even worse (bigot,
> racist, sexist etc. - you name it).

I think the adherents of those views are currently enthralled by the power
they gain from shunning and social ostracism.

------
phkahler
>> Politics often don’t mix easily at work, but it’s particularly fraught in
tech, where free thinking is prized yet the workforce is predominantly
liberal.

It used to be free thinking. They would embrace "inclusiveness" under that
banner. The problem is they've gone all-in with the notion that being a Social
Justice Warrior is a morally superior ideological position and anyone else is
a bad person. They really have become a distinct hate group even though in
some places they are a majority.

I no longer associate with people who throw around the terms misogyny,
patriarchy, and rape culture. I'm a pretty simple guy but I'm tired of hearing
how bad I am just because I have a Y chromosome. The war on masculinity is
very real.

~~~
yahna
> I'm a pretty simple guy but I'm tired of hearing how bad I am just because I
> have a Y chromosome. The war on masculinity is very real.

Really, cause never once have I felt that way.

------
didgeoridoo
I think the real issue is that we're sliding toward excessive emotionalism in
our politics, and the side with the simplest and most poingnant argument is
the one that tends to dominate on any particular issue. Sometimes liberals are
better at riling people up, but conservatives certainly have managed some
"victories" as well.

This is precisely the wrong way to make political decisions, but it pushes all
of our lizard-brain buttons and I'm not sure how we pull out of it.

------
AndrewKemendo
A recent Joe Rogan Podcast had a really interesting discussion about this [1].

Basically one of the key points, especially in light of people being called
Nazis (accurately or spuriously), is that one of the major social aspects of
pre-war Germany was that there was radical polarization between fascist and
anti-fascist groups similar to what we see now. However because the
psychological makeup of someone who would support fascism is more drawn toward
structuralism, law and order etc... they are much more organized and lethal as
a group.

You see echoes here with the Alt-Right and Antifa. Alt-Right is structured,
highly armed, biologically motivated (aka racist) and generally support law
enforcement. Antifa is a loose consolidation of many groups (LGBT, Socialists,
Radfem etc...) that is under armed and would likely not be as cohesive in the
long run.

So by banning these hate groups from being searchable and driving them away,
it just makes both sides echo each other more and gives strength to each
extreme of the movements. Even worse, it gives people like the ones in this
article no real option to be moderate - they basically feel like they need to
join a radical ideology because they feel the only alternative is anathema.
This is by the way what happens all over the world with terrorist recruiting
etc... so the pattern is pretty well understood. If you create extremes,
organizations will form around them and then the majority of people get drug
along for the ride and do morally dubious things along the way.

[1]
[https://youtu.be/6G59zsjM2UI?t=10m55s](https://youtu.be/6G59zsjM2UI?t=10m55s)

~~~
notfromhere
Given how many communist revolutions we've had in the past, it's not an issue
of innate structure between the two groups

------
frgtpsswrdlame
Can't we just keep politics out of the workplace? Who really wants to sit next
to the guy who's going to spend a half an hour telling me about my company's
“social justice agenda”?

~~~
fhood
I don't know. It is kind of hard. I feel that if someone supports Trump, it is
my moral obligation to change their mind. I wouldn't shame or degrade them,
but I would argue my point fairly strongly.

~~~
frgtpsswrdlame
I'd say that makes my case for me. Politics has a draw, a tribalistic
compulsion that draws everyone in. That's why it shouldn't exist in the
workplace.

~~~
TeMPOraL
Or frankly, anywhere else for that matter. We should strive to be above those
"tribalistic compulsions".

------
jenkstom
You should try being liberal in a red state. I've had people try to run me off
of the road for an Obama sticker before. It's not social isolation here, it's
straight up aggression.

~~~
JSONwebtoken
You are aware of what you're doing and the reactions it will incite. What do
you think happens to parked cars with MAGA stickers in California? Well you
don't have to wonder, there are more than enough "social experiments" on
youtube documenting this subject matter.

~~~
plandis
You're effectively arguing that you know (and possibly deserve) any reaction
you get out of having a certain opinion. Justifying that with "well, it
happens to others" is not great. You political opinions should never be
justification for harm.

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.

------
jzymbaluk
> an employee who describes himself as libertarian [...] believes the now
> infamous memo was relatively well-reasoned and that Silicon Valley's
> diversity initiatives ignore data that conflict with their ideology. He’s
> regularly reminded of what he refers to as the company’s “social justice
> agenda,” like when he gets corporate email touting a donation to a non-
> profit that supports minorities, or hears an executive talk about hoping to
> have half of his leadership team be female,which he believes shows the
> company prioritizes some groups over others.

This makes zero sense to me. A private company having a corporate agenda and
goals and using its power in the industry to enact social change sounds like
something even Ayn Rand would be okay with. Libertarianism is supposed to
champion the values of private property, political liberty and free
association. This guy should realize he's working for a company with owners,
and that under his own ideology, owners have every right to push whatever
political agenda they want, and that if he has a problem with his company
taking a stand on social justice, then that's fine, he should work somewhere
else.

------
thedz
IMO, part of the problem is that some "conservative" viewpoints nowadays are
directly attacking or undermining how your coworkers might live. And in many
cases, so much so that their views go from "well, that sucks but I can still
live my life" to "if your views were enacted, my way of life would be
destroyed".

~~~
thescribe
So taking away a conservative's guns or forcing them to pay into a social
safety net are equally immoral?

------
jimbokun
"(That’s in a sector where 76 percent of technical jobs are held by men, and
blacks and Latinos make up only 5 percent of the workforce.)"

I think this is part of the problem.

Leadership at Silicon Valley companies want to think of themselves as
enlightened and egalitarian when it comes to issues of race and gender.
However, in reality, they have created an environment made up mostly of white,
Indian, and Asian men.

So they are super sensitive and want to signal their virtue by cracking down
on workers lower on the totem pole who seem insensitive to these diversity
issues, because it's easier than making actual changes to improve diversity.

------
neom
I think this is all circles of America right now. I'm a typical social leaning
west coast tech dude and I cannot be pragmatic in my conversations and points
about the state of affairs because I'm immediately a supporter of this that or
the next thing. Constructive public discourse is dead?

~~~
vgh
One cannot even seem to have 'conservative' stances on one thing and 'liberal'
stances on others. And, no, I'm not libertarian either. The US had a great
opportunity to elect a third party last time around, yet decided to dig in its
heels more on candidates that were unpopular and take out their spite against
'the other side'.

So you can't even debate an issue. You have to take a 'side' on an issue.

~~~
neom
Totally!!! It's wild. I feel like growing up it was normal to identify as say
a very social leaning fiscal conservative. These days if I say everyone should
be allowed to be married and everyone should be allowed to carry a gun, I'm
likely labeled the opposite view of the person I'm talking with (I don't re:
guns, to be clear). Very strange times.

------
astebbin
Despite the many upvotes, numerous comments, and recent post time, this
submission no longer appears on the front page. I don't see a "submission
flagged" or "removed" indicator. Would a moderator be able to tell us what's
up?

~~~
sctb
Flags affect a story's ranking before the title says [flagged]. The flamewar
detector software also kicked in (which accounted for the initial dramatic
drop in rank), but we turned that off, despite the actual flamewars.

------
tchaffee
I think employees could use some training on how liberals and conservatives
think very differently. When I became familiar with Jonathan Haidt and his
moral foundations theory, I was able to better understand where conservatives
are coming from, and even became a lot better at persuading.

For example, when talking about confederate statues coming down, a
conservative will respond to arguments around why it's traditional and
patriotic to remove those statues (along with why it's fair) whereas a liberal
will concentrate only on why it's fair. Make an argument that focuses only on
the fairness aspect and the conservative will remain unconvinced and the
liberal will think the conservative is a horrible person, because the liberal
heavily values fairness.

Liberals are most sensitive to the Care and Fairness moral foundations and
conservatives are equally sensitive to all the first five foundations. I think
the sixth foundation was added for libertarians.

\- Care: cherishing and protecting others; opposite of harm.

\- Fairness or proportionality: rendering justice according to shared rules;
opposite of cheating.

\- Loyalty or ingroup: standing with your group, family, nation; opposite of
betrayal.

\- Authority or respect: submitting to tradition and legitimate authority;
opposite of subversion.

\- Sanctity or purity: abhorrence for disgusting things, foods, actions;
opposite of degradation.

A sixth foundation, Liberty or oppression, was theorized by Jonathan Haidt in
The Righteous Mind chapter 8.

Once you understand that the other person is thinking about the problem in a
very different way than you, you can stop talking past each other and start
getting to a sort of understanding.

Haidt's TED talk is a fun introduction to the subject.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vs41JrnGaxc)

As a final note, I wonder if conservatives could use their own experiences to
develop some much needed empathy for minorities and women in STEM? These
groups seem to be at odds right now, but they actually have a lot in common
when it comes to feeling like an outsider who will never fully be accepted.
Likewise, minorities and women might be missing an opportunity for diversity
allies because they are writing off conservatives as being against their cause
without ever trying to look for common ground.

~~~
yahna
Why would I listen to a Ted talk buy a guy who is calling me disrespectful,
disloyal, and impure?

~~~
tchaffee
You shouldn't. Since that's nothing close to what he says, you might just
learn something by listening. Haidt is pretty fair and non-judgmental. If
anything one could use his talk to say conservatives are using a more balanced
consideration when making moral decisions. Using five factors instead of just
two.

~~~
bjl
Haidt's ideas are widely discredited among academics in sociology, psychology,
and philosophy. He's peddling pseudo-science that just so happens to make
conservatives seem more 'balanced' than liberals.

~~~
tchaffee
Sources? I'd add that even if you can show he has no support in the academic
world, his framework has been a life changer for me in how I relate to and
negotiate with conservatives.

------
bb88
Why is this news? If you have an unpopular opinion, you're going to be
ostracized. If you oppose Obamacare in SF, you're gonna be ostracized. If you
support gun control in Odessa, you're gonna be ostracized.

You're hired to work. Not to share your opinion with your co-workers. Why is
this so hard for people to understand?

~~~
didibus
I agree with you, but I also feel some opinions sometime reflect into your own
personality, and you're identity can be constructed around it. Humour can
easily be racist or sexist for example. Now all of a sudden, you're just being
yourself, making a joke you think people will laugh at and like you cause
you're funny, but suddenly that backfires. Now, it's not just your opinions,
even if you changed your opinions, the parts ingrained in your personality
aren't easy to change at all. So you can start feeling isolated, or like you
can't be yourself without offending or pushing people away.

~~~
bb88
That very reason is why no one talks about trying to change personalities.

Instead we talk about changing behaviors.

------
gerbilly
I think the problem is that when someone hears your opinion on one of the big
issues that divide liberals from conservatives, they often make the leap and
assume that they also know your opinions on all the other issues as well.

------
TheOtherHobbes
"where free thinking is prized yet the workforce is predominantly liberal."

I wonder if liberals who work for libertarian company cultures also feel
isolated.

Union organisers certainly do - until they're fired.

Or, in some notable historical cases, murdered.

------
drivingmenuts
You'd think people would know by now that two things you never, ever, ever
discuss at the office are religion and politics, unless one of those happens
to be the purpose of your work.

Even then, not a good idea.

------
didibus
I'd guess this is only true if you're in favor of policies that are against
other, targeted, groups or people. And that sounds okay to me. That's pretty
equivalent to being an asshole. It's normal for people not to like you if you
sound mean, unpleasant, and appear to be threatening.

If you're being isolated and marginalised for opinions that aren't themselves
marginalising, then there's a real problem.

~~~
yahna
If you are willing to support those who push those opinions then you deserve
to be treated as a supporter of those opinions.

~~~
sctb
Could you please slow down and stop doing battle in this thread? We're trying
our best to learn something here, and that means comments need to be civil and
substantive—they need to say something meaningful instead of just stoking the
flames.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

------
feedjoelpie
"At conservative oil companies, those who disagree on politics say they're
isolated"

Okay, see how utterly useless this "controversy" is now?

~~~
diego_moita
I believe you're 200% right.

But, unfortunately, the irony is that the same mechanism that isolates
conservatives on SV and liberals on oil companies is working here to isolate
your good sense in Hacker News.

~~~
feedjoelpie
I can't believe we're suddenly having a moral crisis about business cultural
politics... over the fact that a guy was fired for arguing in part that
historically discriminated-against groups are underrepresented because of
_biological unfitness_.

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.

~~~
diego_moita
I see it more like instinct vs. reason. When reason fights instinct, the later
usually wins.

We get surprised when groups that we expect to be sophisticated behave exactly
like Polynesian/Amazonian tribes or chimpanzees in the Congo.

But, many times, civilization is just a varnish over bestiality, a make-up on
a pig. Deep down we react like tribes that repress behavior that looks
threatening to our group cohesion.

------
tempthoughtsss
Duh, It bills itself as that. SF is the liberal strong hold on the other side
of the conservative strong hold. I think if you want moderate that or of small
middle town middle America.

It seems as if because the liberal cities do financially so much better than
the small town America many of those conservative Americans want to move here
and feel comfortable expressing and acting on their view. The problem is I
don't want to welcome those ideas, and I don't want people comfortable saying
those things around me. I have a good feeling there a reason why liberal
places do better, and there no such thing as a conservative mega city in
America. Those ideas don't work, they don't promote growth, and I think
expressing those ideas would hamper the places where these liberal companies
reside

~~~
cuckcuckspruce
>I don't want to welcome those ideas, and I don't want people comfortable
saying those things around me.

Would you support legislation to prevent people from expressing views that
disagree with?

~~~
tempthoughtsss
No, the government shouldn't punish you for your views. But personally I sure
as hell don't want it near me.

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.

------
reader5000
Constant digital stimulation is cognitively infantilizing, rendering adult
conversation dead.

------
justforFranz
Hey, ya know what? There are some people who very strongly believe that the
only place in America they can live safely is in the SF Bay Area. And we're
going to see more and more stories in the news about why that's the case as
time goes on.

------
synicalx
There's wisdom in what my grandma always says: Don't talk about politics, it's
rude.

And guess what, 25 years of being related to her and she hasn't once hit me
with a bit of wood over a difference of opinion.

------
leecarraher
does this differ at all from other organizations that have a strongly biased
demographic. I work in tech. and admit there is a bias, but that is one of the
many reason i prefer to working in a tech field. Is the difference, that in
tech, in particular the silicon valley tech sector, work work and life are so
intertwined, that not only is your work-life politically bias, but by virtue
of this a la carte lifestyle, everything else is too.

------
billsmithaustin
Well sure, but this isn't just a tech thing. At conservative petroleum
companies, those who disagree on politics say they're isolated too.

~~~
peoplewindow
Is that correct? Can you cite that?

I can imagine they may feel isolated in the sense that their views are not
very common. But isolated in the sense of, if I let on I voted for Obama I
will get fired? I am very skeptical of that.

My experience of these issues is that one part of society has become
exceptionally intolerant far beyond other parts. I do not hear stories of
conservative companies engaging in mini civil wars and retribution firings
over liberal memos.

------
diego_moita
I don't understand why is this surprising. Has there ever been any group of
primates/hominids where deviating behavior isn't frowned upon?

Every group prizes social cohesion. When a behavior looks threatening to that
cohesion it is a natural defense for the group to isolate such threat. It is a
necessary part of its survival, like an organism reacting to parasites,
infections or offending threats.

This reaction even has respectable philosophical ethical justifications, see
Karl Popper's discussion on the limits of tolerance.

I do not condone with intolerance, but we should understand that, at a very
primary instinctive level, there are evolutionary and biological reasons for
this. These are even some of the reasons for the downvotes I will get.

~~~
romanovcode
The problem might be the hypocrisy of the situation a.k.a. Free speech until
you say something I don't like.

~~~
diego_moita
I agree. My point is that when reason and instinct collide, instinct wins most
of time.

------
burger_moon
Wow This slid off the front page fast. It went from #1 to #33 in the time it
took me to brush my teeth while I get ready for work.

You can tell an article hits home when people are flagging it to death to hide
it.

~~~
qrpike
Now it's 215+.... Very strange

~~~
Jtsummers
Flame war detection. I don't know how advanced it is, but it's partly based on
the number of comments and depth of comment threads, and their rate of growth.
If you have a handful of very deep threads that have grown in just a short
period of time, it's often a sign of negative, hostile discussions. When
detected, those posts get their score (for how they should be ordered)
severely reduced.

~~~
sctb
Yes, this thread tripped the overheated-discussion detector. We've turned it
off for now, but it's not exactly a false positive.

------
neo4sure
All I can is get used to it. Red states are in decline and the trend will
continue into the future. There is a reason tech companies are liberal.

~~~
ubertaco
Yeah, the mass migration of tech companies out of the Bay and to Austin,
Raleigh, Boston, and Atlanta is definitely a sign of "red state decline".

~~~
yahna
> Boston

Since when is Boston in a 'red state'?

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

------
gumby
Oh boo hoo. For every supposedly "pro liberal" tech company there are plenty
of "conservative" ones you can work for (EMC and Lockheed have huge presences
in the Valley). Or you could just, you know, enjoy your technical work and not
worry about the politics within a private sector organization.

If you really think there's a change that _needs_ to happen you could drive
for it, but no, it's not inherently going to make you popular. The same issues
faced by people who struggle/have struggled for more diversity in the private
sector over the decades.

------
ainiriand
If they are isolated maybe this is not so bad taking into account how they see
immigration, isn't it? Jokes apart, sometimes is very hard to left aside those
differences that might be hiding an interesting person. I am in the same
situation with a coworker which is very conservative, sometimes is hard to get
along with it.

------
te_chris
Why do these over-educated conspiracy theorists keep getting all this media
space to pretend they're marginalised? Seriously, complaining about a "social
justice agenda" and political oppression while your side controls all 3
branches of US federal govt., a bunch of the state govt. and, as an added
bonus, faces weak political opposition seems to be the high point of self-
indulgence or, perhaps, 'snowflakeness'.

Seriously, if your whole cause is just a protest movement to complain about
how other people don't agree with you or respect you, even once you hold
power, what's the point of your politics?

------
archagon
If your politics, or the beliefs of those who share your politics, make your
coworkers feel hurt, scared, and angry, then I see absolutely no reason to
bring them to your workplace. It's basic human interaction 101. And sorry, but
insisting that people grow a thicker skin won't work, because that's not how
people operate.

I discuss controversial topics in person with my close friends, and I don't
feel any poorer for it.

~~~
ubertaco
This is a two-way street. As a Christian, I get upset when I hear my employer
promote Bhuddist values (inviting Bhuddist monks on-site to otherwise-
nonreligious corporate events) while also parading their role in defeating
legislation to protect religious clergy who hold traditionally-Christian
beliefs from being sued over their beliefs. This communicates to me both
"you're the enemy, and we are working hard to make you vulnerable" and "these
others who are directly opposite you are our favorites."

The CEO has brought his religion to the workplace to the detriment of many of
his employees, and as a result I am both hurt (by being "enemied") and scared
(for the long-term existence of 1st-Amendment protection for my religious
practice, given the company's legal activism). Is it still true in this case
that "insisting that people grow a thicker skin won't work"?

~~~
feedjoelpie
A few things...

* 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.

~~~
ubertaco
1\. Agreed

2\. While I understand what you're trying to say, I don't think you'd be
remiss, and in fact, I found it a bit presumptive to assume that I advocate
for Christian viewpoints being "flaunted at employees" and that I somehow need
"an opportunity to understand why this is bad" as though I didn't already.

3\. While it's true that as a public secular institution, the company can't
make hiring decisions based on religious beliefs, there appears to be no
protection from being intentionally treated poorly on a systemic level (and no
regard for "behaving" unless I wanted to pony up and lawyer up against my
employer)

4\. The law being "paraded" is the one that would have permitted _religious
clergy_ in _religious institutions_ to make business decisions based on
religious values (i.e. I can't sue a rabbi for refusing to host my pork BBQ
event on Saturday night at a synagogue).

------
Frondo
My heart goes out to those lonely people.

I think, though, the reality is that politics (and concomitant voting choices)
has consequences on the lives of others, and this pattern of some social
isolation is in turn a consequence of that.

It isn't Star Wars vs Star Trek, it's whether Jim the SRE can marry his long-
term boyfriend Mike, or whatever.

It's not _just_ politics. It never is. Votes make a difference in people's
lives.

What do conservatives expect, when society is moving away from the social
views their party has aligned itself with?

And, to remain solution-focused, how should the rest of us befriend them when
the conservative party in this country has such views? What's the common
ground we can look for?

To go with gay issues (I have a lot more gay friends than people of color
friends, so I'm more sympathetic to their issues day-to-day), to you folks out
there who oppose gay marriage now, or supported Reagan when AIDS was
decimating the gay community in the 80s, or any number of examples...

How may I find common ground with you when your politics and votes have hurt
so badly the community so many of my friends are a part of?

~~~
vgh
I think this is still a false dichotomy. Some of us just don't want the
government subsidizing marriage at all. Why should any dual-income pair get
tax benefits? I say this as a married person.

The thought I'm guessing at the time was to encourage new families to build up
society, but not even all straight, married couples are doing that. Why not
just take the government out of the equation and let anyone declare any kind
of relationship status they want. It's not like I have to take part in it.

~~~
Frondo
Personally, I agree! I'd get the government out of marriage entirely, except
to recognize whatever union you wanted.

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?

~~~
vgh
Yeah, the hospital visitation rights and death benefits are good points. I'm
not sure why those are so restrictive at all? Why even require a documented
relationship? Just let people choose who can visit them, or get their death
benefits. Is that a crazy stance?

