
Twitter CEO: conservative employees ‘dont feel safe to express their opinions’ - kushti
https://www.recode.net/2018/9/14/17857622/twitter-liberal-employees-conservative-trump-politics
======
dang
All: Hacker News is a place for community members to hear and understand each
other. If you want to fight, please fight elsewhere.

Regardless of how right you are or feel, if you can't muster tolerance or
empathy for the other side, please don't post here until you can. You might
not owe it to them, but you do owe it to the community.

------
pr0tonic
Seeing how the quickly the comments in this thread have devolved into calling
conservatives all kinds of derogatory names is a good example why conservative
Twitter employees might be afraid to express their opinions. The place of my
employment, like most tech companies is overwhelmingly liberal. I dont even
identify as liberal or conservative and I am afraid to express any opinion
that is contrary to liberal thought. The problem is not that I may have a
minority opinion at work, it's how common it's become with people on the left
to try and ruin those who hold the "wrong" opinions usually by trying to get
them fired and going on social media to call them all sorts of nasty things.
Sadly I think my anecdote is more of the norm than the exception in liberal
dominated spaces.

~~~
BadassFractal
Jonathan Haidt has a great concept for this "trying to get people fired at all
costs by taking the most offense and doing the worst read of something someone
said".

He calls it the "prestige economy", where one gains great prestige in the eyes
of one's group by calling out someone for being racist/sexist etc., even when
the caller KNOWS (he references the Dean of Claremont McKenna getting fired as
example) that's not at all what that person intended. Intent doesn't matter in
that world view, and it becomes all about gaining prestige through intentional
(or maybe not) misinterpretation of their position.

It's a dangerous game to play, and I can't see it leading to anything but the
worst tribalism and division among well-meaning people.

------
sdinsn
At my work, talking about politics is just not allowed. More places should
follow this. There's nothing good that can come of it.

~~~
chrisco255
I think ideally, people would realize that there's human beings who disagree
with them, that aren't terrible people. Maybe that's too much to ask in
today's climate?

~~~
sdinsn
I agree, but I don't think that will happen

------
snaky
> Dorsey spoke to Fox News commentator Sean Hannity on his radio show during a
> recent press blitz and had a number of secret meetings with conservative
> politicians in Washington this summer to “build ‘trust’ among conservatives
> who have long chastised the company,” according to the Washington Post.

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/06/27/inside-...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2018/06/27/inside-
facebook-twitters-secret-meetings-with-trump-aides-conservative-leaders-who-
say-tech-is-biased/)

------
timavr
I am not sure work is the right place to express your opinions on
controversial topics.

It is different though sharing your thoughts/interest with people you trust at
work.

Also there is assymetry of impact of ideas between two sides.

Independent person would probably say that conservative ideas are Perceived to
be more controversial by other side then other way around.

Like gun debate. If co-worker comes to work and says guns are bad. Ok whatever
your opinion man. But if they come to work and like yo guns are awesome, 2nd
amendment bros. I own one, then for other side this person might be perceived
as threat.

~~~
inetknght
> work is the right place to express your opinions on controversial topics.

This shuts down all discussion of controversial topics. If you're not allowed
to discuss how those controversial topics can impact your work environment and
customers then you're running down a very slippery slope of biasing your
company against customers who similarly hold controversial viewpoints.

> Independent person would probably say that conservative ideas are Perceived
> to be more controversial by other side then other way around.

This is a biased opinion.

> for other side this person might be perceived as threat.

Controversial topics aren't limited to politics and feeling threatened can go
both ways.

I happen to own a gun and am pro-second-amendment. I feel threatened by people
who are _not_ trained to use guns.

What about cars? I feel threatened by people who brag about racing. Or
drinking. Or smoking. Or sex. But that's the easy stuff that "everyone" (well,
mature people IMO) knows not to talk about at the office.

But then there's the other things. The things that relate to work.

I definitely feel _threatened_ when a coworker talks about customers in a
derogatory manner, especially when it's my boss. Employees can be customers
too.

I feel threatened when someone at the office talks about how we're increasing
the margins by cutting corners somewhere. I have empathy for customers and I
don't want our product's quality reduced.

If I don't feel my job security would be safe if I spoke up, then my coworker
talking about that will make me feel threatened.

~~~
etrautmann
> I feel threatened by people who are not trained to use guns.

This is a strained and bizarre argument and requires unpacking for me to
understand, unless you meant it as hyperbole.

I enjoy shooting safely, but I can't imagine feeling threatened by someone's
lack of firearms training in an office workplace.

~~~
inetknght
Allow me to clarify. This is kind've a ramble and I _am_ stretching different
related thoughts together.

I live in Texas now. Before moving here, I lived in California. There's a
stark difference of opinion about guns between the states. In California, guns
are... well they're definitely _not_ part of the culture there.

I never fired a gun until I was 23 years old and hung out with a friend-in-law
at their home away from the city. A few years later I bought my first gun and
went to the range. The people at the range were somewhat reserved, somewhat
mocking about lack of experience. They definitely didn't appreciate people who
didn't know all the rules like the back of their hand. That definitely doesn't
encourage someone to learn how to handle a gun. Interesting, yes?

So, being in Texas, where guns are part of the culture in many places, it's
also interesting to find people who've never fired a gun. It's _scary_ to find
people who think that the only people who should own a gun are the armed
forces.

In my experience, that latter is a statement generally comes from people who
are naive about US history and their government; or they have been emotionally
damaged by guns which I can respect even if I disagree.

However, someone who's not been around guns, doesn't know the difference
between various "basic" types of guns (automatic, semi-automatic, manual;
rifle, shotgun, pistol; etc) makes me feel threatened when they start talking
about what you can or can not do with a gun. The information they talk about
is usually _wrong_ and they're not usually willing to listen to corrections. I
work with scientists; someone who isn't trained and isn't willing to be
trained is a threat to science.

Finally, someone who talks about something with no training or experience is
worse than someone who does. Imagine a computer user who's not trained to
write software but talks as if databases are "the worst". Sure you could
ignore them. But remember that that person can also talk to more people than
just you. They could be spewing the same nonsense to their government
representatives. If the representative or political leader doesn't have two
brain cells (which seems common these days), they're just as likely to write
bad legislation or policy about computers^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hguns.

Having lived in both California and Texas I can definitely say that I've seen
many opinions first-hand. There's no "right" opinion. There's _definitely_
wrong opinions though.

~~~
jbob2000
I've fired guns too, it's a nice adrenalin rush and I felt very powerful.
_Uncomfortably powerful_. It's ok if you like these feelings, but your
comments seem like thin justifications. You can get these feelings without
rampant gun ownership.

~~~
true_religion
I have fired a gun and did not feel any strange emotions about it. To me, it
is just a tool, no different from a knife om terms of emotion.

------
root_axis
Conservatives are ostensibly opposed to the idea of safe spaces, so how do we
reconcile that ideology with the fact that they want safe spaces in
communities where they are the minority?

~~~
morgtheborg
> safe spaces

I'm not sure "safe space" is the right word. People lose jobs, housing
opportunities, and professional connections for being conservative in the Bay
Area. There's a damn good reason to be afraid and it isn't about our
"feelings". There are professional repercussions.

~~~
root_axis
> _People lose jobs, housing opportunities, and professional connections for
> being conservative in the Bay Area_

Sounds to me like literally the exact same thing the left claims about being
black or a woman in contexts where the conservative ideology is more
pervasive.

~~~
morgtheborg
I'm sure that's true. I haven't personally lived in a conservative area in
America for any extended period of time.

Hopefully we can both agree these are bad things to occur due to race, gender,
sex, political orientation, etc. You should be judged for how you treat and
speak to people, not for your political opinions.

I've worked with men that genuinely believe that women should not be educated
and just stay home with children. Whatever. They treated women well in class
and outside of class and THAT is what they should be judged on for jobs,
housing, and connections --- not their personal opinions when they vote.

~~~
root_axis
> _I 'm sure that's true. I haven't personally lived in a conservative area in
> America for any extended period of time._

Whether its true or not, my point is that the complaint is the same as the one
you articulated in your original comment.

> _You should be judged for how you treat and speak to people, not for your
> political opinions._

Nobody on either side believes this; the right judges the left as communists
destroying America and the left judges the right as Nazis destroying America,
that's the nature of politics.

~~~
morgtheborg
> Nobody on either side believes this; the right judges the left as communists
> destroying America and the left judges the right as Nazis destroying
> America, that's the nature of politics.

This attitude is the exact sort of attitude causing all the problems. And, no,
not everyone has it.

~~~
root_axis
It's not an "attitude", it's an observation of fact within the realm of
politics. People engaged in political activity are inherently implicated by
the rhetoric, philosophy and consequences of the ideals they support, that is
the price of taking a stance. This is a non-issue if one simply avoids
broadcasting political activity in the workplace and this is true whether
you're a conservative in the bay area or a liberal in the heartland.

------
jonathankoren
I notice the same dynamics are playing out on social media that played out in
traditional media years ago. Conservatives cry bias, without evidence that any
bias is appearing in the actual product.

As Rich Bond said over 25 years ago[0]:

“There is some strategy to it [bashing the 'liberal' media] ... If you watch
any great coach, what they try to do is 'work the refs.' Maybe the ref will
cut you a little slack on the next one.”

It’s a useful myth, where blatantly partisan Fox News bills itself as “fair
and balanced”.

I’ve seen this play out in my own career where, claims of political bias was
cast against algorithms I developed because random extreme partisan website
wasn’t being put in the top slot for a trending topic. It was disingenuous
criticism.

We’re seeing the same thing again because foreign troll farms are being
shutdown, you find yourself in a minority, the. You have to look to some grand
conspiracy because your filter bubble was popped.

There’s nothing here but the old tired tactic of promoting a false
equivalence, which is paying political dividends. See Facebook’s fact checking
partners, 4 respected non partisan orgs, and the explicitly conservativly
partisan Weekly Standard, which used its veto against an explicitly liberally
partisan organization.[1]

It’s _really_ weird to have a partisan org on your ostensibly nonpartisan
editorial board. It does make sense if you’re throwing conservatives a bone by
giving them a vote and not a liberal org. So the refs are successfully worked.

When it comes to Twitter itself, Jack has shown through his actions that he
either fundamentally misunderstand what is going on, or he actually supports
the extreme views on his site.

[0]
[https://archives.cjr.org/politics/a_cynics_take_on_media_bia...](https://archives.cjr.org/politics/a_cynics_take_on_media_bias.php)

[1] [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/9/12/17848026/f...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2018/9/12/17848026/facebook-thinkprogress-weekly-standard)

------
threatofrain
Is conservatism a strong or coherent identity outside of Christianity? I feel
like when people say "conservative" it muddles what things mean to an outside
audience. It's just like when people say religious, but they really mean
Christian.

~~~
gwright
Yes.

But I would also agree that many of the terms, such as "conservative", that
are thrown around in public debate are not very well defined or are often
interpreted in very different ways by different people.

------
sitkack
Part of being a conservative is strength. If you don't have that fortitude,
you are conservative only in name.

~~~
platinumrad
This might actually be the most meaningless platitude anyone has ever said.

~~~
dang
Maybe so, but please don't call names in HN comments. This is in the site
guidelines:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).

------
def_ConGame
In order to feel safe expressing your opinions, you have to feel like you
won't raise an eyebrow. Either that, or any owner of a raised eyebrow won't
take it any further than the mild disagreement of raising an eyebrow.

It's really obvious that not only is it not possible to say whatever you want
at work, but that in some cases, raising an eyebrow is the last thing you will
ever do, at least within the context of one's career.

The tension at hand is founded in things that simply will not be happening any
time soon. But unpredictable reactions to minor slights set people on edge all
around.

The polarity is highly charged, even though no one really has murder and
beatings high on their list of priorities, the paranoia and suspicion that the
other side _does_ is what leaves us destabilized.

Homosexuality, abortion, race, evolution, genetics, how the universe began,
and where do we go when we die. Talking about these things at work is a
mistake, but even joking about "the wrong opinion" will completely ruin you in
less than an hour, so trying to feel safe about having an opinion is a bad
idea, whether you feel you're on the right side of history or not.

