
Divided We Code: Undercover Conservatives - alacritythief
http://money.cnn.com/technology/divided-we-code/#/?page=undercover-conservatives
======
Upvoter33
Honestly, why don't people keep their politics out of the workplace entirely?
Unless you are working at a lobbying firm or whatever, work should be about
work, not about being a place to discuss gun rights, abortion, or immigration.

~~~
lj3
> Honestly, why don't people keep their politics out of the workplace
> entirely?

Because the US is in the middle of a cold civil war that's heating up fast.
Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably
effective.

~~~
leereeves
> Denying your enemy employment and therefore bankrupting them is remarkably
> effective.

Bankrupting your enemy is mostly effective at further radicalizing them and
inspiring violence.

That attitude would make this "cold civil war" a hot war.

~~~
lj3
I completely agree, which is why I said it's heating up fast and also why I
believe violence is unavoidable now. "That attitude" has been prevalent on
both sides since Trump was elected and it continues to spread.

~~~
leereeves
That attitude became prevalent long before the Presidential election. SJWs
were calling for people to be fired back in 2013, perhaps earlier. I might
also argue that that attitude has been prevalent in some circles -
particularly academia - for decades, and spread from academics to their
students (the SJWs) to Republican backlash against the SJWs to widespread
Democratic backlash against the Republican backlash.

Still, I'm optimistic, because I have seen softening after the recent
incidents of violence, and some mainstream rejection of leftist extremism.

For example, this CNN article treating the plight of their ideological
opponents with sympathy rather than gloating.

------
fossuser
"John: If I walked into work with a "Make America Great Again" hat, there
would be repercussions. Quite a few people would take it as a personal
affront, and I would expect to be out of the company within weeks, if not a
month."

If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly
question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just
categorizing them as stupid). Is this really about politics?

It's not because they're 'conservative', it's just given access to the same
available information some conclusions are just weak and it's reasonable to
lose respect for people when they hold them.

~~~
BeetleB
I think it is reasonable to question their competency. I think we _all_ do it
to an extent with coworkers.

The mistake is _concluding_ it based on this type of scant information.

You treat it like any other unknown. You investigate deeper. If you work with
the person for a while, you'll know his reasoning abilities far better than
the information you gleaned from that hat.

>If someone walked in with a young earth creationist hat I would similarly
question their ability to think critically (and have a hard time not just
categorizing them as stupid).

And yet I've worked with a young earth creationist who was the best coder in
his team (the rest of whom were not creationists). From my general experiences
in life, his example is not much of an outlier.

Science Nobel laureates have believed in stupid things, as did many well known
mathematicians of the past. Given that, why would you question his abilities?

~~~
subsection1h
_why would you question his abilities?_

Biblical literalists have no regard for empirical evidence.

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

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

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

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

[1] [http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/20/trumps-epa-chief-charts-
ne...](http://dailysignal.com/2017/10/20/trumps-epa-chief-charts-new-course-
interview-scott-pruitt/)

[2] [https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/shimkus-cites-
genesis...](https://www.politico.com/story/2010/11/shimkus-cites-genesis-on-
climate-044958)

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

~~~
CalChris
It’s not illegal for me to reject non-Flying Spaghetti Monsterarians on the
basis of their religion. It is unconstitutional for the govmint to do so.

~~~
fossuser
Actually if you’re hiring - religion is a protected class and it is illegal
for you to discriminate based on it.

~~~
CalChris
I was under the misapprehension that candidate meant political candidate and
not job candidate. My mistake.

------
hasbroslasher
I've worked places (not in tech) where I was not allowed to talk about my
support for Barack Obama for fear of being shouted down, mocked, or forced to
listen to racist diatribes about his history. I have been on the other side of
this kind of bullshit. I moved from the small, Midwestern town that harbored
these people and their insane beliefs to a liberal, coastal city that "gets"
me a little more. I'm happier for it. I work with other coastal liberals and
none of us have much respect for anyone who out-and-out supports Donald Trump,
and we probably won't any time soon. A lot of us share this background.

I suggest these men do the same. Move to Dallas or New York or somewhere where
conservatism is a little more appreciated. Move to Denver or Atlanta. Find
somewhere that feels like home, where there are other conservative techies.
Claiming the victim status as a white man in the most expensive city, in the
highest paying industry comes off as a little entitled, at least to me.

~~~
notconservative
I did that recently, moved from the Bay Area to a red state. But, what about
the concept of engaging with and challenging people who have different
beliefs?

People don't really change their minds when you call them a racist, fire them,
etc. When I am talking to a liberal who I know wont try to cause problems for
me (like getting me fired), I will ask lots of questions.

Why do you believe X? What facts support that opinion? I believe Y because
..., where do you think the flaw in my logic is? Why do you think value A is
more important that counter-value B?

It's really depressing that someone such as yourself, who has known what it is
to be descriminated against for what you think are reasonable beliefs, would
perpetuate the same against others.

If you think someone's views are wrong, then ask them why they think that. At
worst, you'll get a better insight into how to point out why they are wrong.
At best, you'll have a chance of convincing them that your position is better.

~~~
hasbroslasher
I'm not saying I can't/won't/don't do that. I love discussing politics with my
family, who are very conservative, and it's always nice and respectful. I just
don't want to live in their society. Generally, they don't want to live in
mine either. Not every liberal around me believes exactly the same thing.
We'll quarrel about whether Black Lives Matter is doing good or whether UBI is
actually an evil capitalist plot or whether someone like Hillary Clinton
really represents what we're about. It's not as groupthink-y as the men in
this article claim.

When I meet informed conservatives, I quietly rejoice because it's so
interesting to talk to them. One of my best friends is also a "free market"
type guy and we get along amazingly well, even when we talk politics. However,
I haven't found many educated people who out-and-out support Donald Trump, and
those I have found often express very caustic beliefs that get in the way of
polite or fulfilling discussions. Hence, I just don't do it. There's a level
of "coming to the center" that those people just won't do with me, so it ends
up devolving into a series of fallacies that just don't need to happen.

~~~
notconservative
It's nice that you have some friends that you can discuss opposing views with.
I also cherish some of my liberal friends who I can have a genuine discussion
with.

I've also had some bad experiences with family members who support Trump and
are super emotional, vocal, and resistant to any discussion about him either
on the policy- or simple behavior-level.

IMO there is a hidden wedge in politics between people who are willing to
engage with their opinions and others who will take your beliefs in the worst
possible context. It's not necessarily a right-left thing, or even a
centrist/extremist thing either. I've had some of the most enlightening
discussions about politics with people that are super extreme in their
progressivism, communism, or conservatism, because they are so knowledgable
about political philosophy or the data supporting their beliefs.

------
yosho
Yeah there's definitely some things that are taboo to talk about because it's
too political. I for one, am a liberal gun owner, which gives me a unique
perspective in that I understand where a lot of liberals are coming from, but
I also understand how conservatives feel when liberals constantly attack their
viewpoints and try to silence them. It's funny how many debates I get into
with other liberals about guns when they've never held or shot a gun in their
life and yet claim to know everything about it. And the amount of moral
superiority they hold around their viewpoints is staggering, truly a "I'm
right you're wrong and an idiot" mentality.

If there's one thing I recommend everyone to do is just listen to the other
side and at least TRY to see their perspective even if you disagree.

------
nkrisc
As someone who is in no way a part of Silicon Valley: does anyone really care
how fiscally conservative or liberal you are? I always thought it was the
social issues that caused the problem. Whether it's misrepresenting statistics
to justify sexism or saying that some people deserve less rights because of
their sexual orientation.

~~~
CalChris
MAGA has _nothing_ to do with fiscal conservatism. As in Zero. Nada. Zilch.

President Obama was quite fiscally conservative.

~~~
rrauenza
...as was Bill Clinton as well!

~~~
CalChris
...as was Carter. ...as wasn't Ronald Reagan, H and W and as isn't Cheeto.

Republicans are in no shape or form, fiscally conservative. They are anti-tax.
But they'll happily spend the seed corn on defense, or rather, on right wing
socialism.

------
pklausler
One of the problems that we face in the US today is that our two political
parties, which once divided the electorate across fault lines of policy or
values, now appear to have reshuffled the electorate across epistemologies. I
sincerely believe that one party now provides a happier home for those who
prefer empirical science.

~~~
rrauenza
It depends on the issue (edit: and how it fits with their world view). The
left can also be irrational when it comes to science on some issues as well:

[http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_...](http://www.realclearscience.com/journal_club/2014/10/20/are_liberals_or_conservatives_more_anti-
vaccine_108905.html)

Ending quote:

>The bottom line is that the CDC data makes it very difficult to argue that
conservatives and liberals share equal blame in the anti-vaccine war. Anti-
vaxxers are clearly more associated with the political Left.

I would tend to agree the left's leadership, however, tends to be less anti-
science.

~~~
RickJWag
You forgot the absolute truth that a 36 week old baby is in fact a baby.

To pretend otherwise (to justify murdering it) is just plain denial.

------
AdeptusAquinas
Everytime I read one of these viewpoints I hear: 'I think others should be
descriminated against and for that I am getting descriminated against? How
dare they descriminate against my right to descriminate!'

~~~
camelNotation
The reduction of conservative beliefs to "discrimination of others" is a lot
of the problem here. Conservative politics is a broad space. Sure, there are
racists and misogynists among them and they get a lot of publicity, but there
are also people who believe that all human beings are equal and that something
like laissez-faire capitalism leads to a more just and prosperous society for
everyone. They might be mistaken in that, but it doesn't warrant accusations
of malice. The fact that you sum up conservatism as "discrimination of others"
is no different than any form of racism or sexism that generalizes people
based on a single label. The inability to treat someone like a human being
before you get to know them is why conservatives are terrified of speaking
publicly in the workplace.

~~~
davidcbc
While it is true that there are economic conservatives who are not racists and
misogynists, the Republican party platform is pretty discriminatory against
several groups.

Someone can certainly vote for a candidate like Trump and not be pro-
discrimination, but that person is saying they are willing to accept
discrimination for the sake of the policies they do agree with.

That is certainly their right, but you can't act shocked when the marginalized
groups and those who support them have a negative reaction when they find out
you support candidates who want to take away their rights.

~~~
erik_seaberg
As Clinton put it,

> that "other" basket of people are people who feel the government has let
> them down, the economy has let them down, nobody cares about them, nobody
> worries about what happens to their lives and their futures; and they’re
> just desperate for change.

That's not a voter who has the luxury of setting aside their own livelihood
and making discrimination (against strangers) a deal-breaker.

~~~
rrauenza
I'd never seen that 2nd half of the quote.

It's interesting how the full quote played out. Trump supporters assumed the
deplorables she was talking about was a smear against them personally, rather
than identifying with the 2nd half of the quote.

But then they also never heard the 2nd half of the quote as much as the 1st.

....still, an incredibly inpolitic statement.

------
notconservative
The ultimate irony is that many conservatives will hesitate before commenting
on this here, because people don't want to be on the receiving end of a
torrent of downvotes.

~~~
tasty_freeze
Anyone who cares about downvotes is a shallow idiot. I can think of more
serious consequences, but caring about getting greyed out on HN is not one of
them.

~~~
notconservative
My main account is my reputation on the internet. That means there literally
would be "serious consequences" if I posted conservative opinions. So, yeah.
I'm a shallow idiot for not wanting to get fired.

------
creaghpatr
Why do people voice personal political views at work? Is this a California
thing?

~~~
brightsize
Sometimes it comes from the top.

"Managers and supervisors can now legally require their workers to participate
in politics as a condition of employment. For instance, in most states,
managers have the legal right to mandate worker attendance at a political
rally for a favored candidate—and fire or punish workers who decline to
participate."[1]

"On August 14 th 2012, GOP presidential hopeful Mitt Romney visited an Ohio
coal mine to give a speech attacking the energy policies of opponent Barack
Obama. A campaign stop such as this one might not seem that unusual in the
midst of a heated presidential election. But this event was different, as the
owners of the coal mine had told their workers that attendance at the rally
would be both mandatory and unpaid." [2]

"Private employers can distribute materials that tell all their workers the
company's positions on political issues. And if your boss were to send an
email urging you to attend a rally for Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton this
weekend, because electing his favorite candidate is 'essential for the future
of the company,' legal experts say he'd be within his rights to do it." [3]

[1] [http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-
grow...](http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-growing-
threat)

[2]
[http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ahertel/files/empmobilpop.p...](http://scholar.harvard.edu/files/ahertel/files/empmobilpop.pdf)

[3] [http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-boss-politics-
at-w...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-boss-politics-at-
work-20161021-story.html)

------
colanderman
Why would you _not_ expect your co-workers to take a MAGA hat as a personal
attack? The MAGA platform is associated with explicitly barring some of them
from the country. Remember that even some green card holders were briefly
barred from reentering. [1]

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-
ca...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13769#Green-card_holders)

~~~
majormajor
What if you don't have the hat but don't favor liberal immigration policies?
Would expressing this political stance be taken as a personal attack?

If so, that level of "we must stamp out the heresy!" is generally associated
with more extreme religious types, not supposedly rational open-minded people.
And that's where the danger lies: once you stop permitting the expression of
contrary views, your ability to argue against them will atrophy.

~~~
hasbroslasher
The problem, of course, is that there's no way to tell from outward
appearances what someone believes. A good example of this is the appropriation
of Satanic imagery in rock music: few of these bands are theistic or LaVeyan
Satanists, most of them are just doing it to send a message. The connotation
of pentagrams and upside down crosses is "watch out, I'm evil, I like evil
things, etc". Conservative Christians, however, often don't realize this and
legitimately believe these people to be agents of the Devil, when usually
they're just trying to provoke a reaction.

There's a layer of semiotics that's important to any outward appearance.
Wearing a swastika but saying "Nonono it's a Hindu symbol of fertility"
probably wouldn't go over well. Nor would saying "Well I didn't like the
Holocaust but I really did think the Nazis had some good ideas about things".
Similarly, wearing a hammer and sickle shirt will get you into trouble in more
conservative places.

The MAGA hat's obviously on a different level than that, but it does explain
some of the reasoning. That hat in particular represents (sometimes fanatical)
appreciation for a man that liberals believe is doing immense harm to our
nation, it's citizens and its image via racist, reactionary and backwards-
looking politics. Because of far-right extremists, I get scared when I see
that hat, to me it signals some form of white supremacy that I need to stay
away from. So yes, wearing it at work might make people uncomfortable.

~~~
zeveb
> That hat in particular represents (sometimes fanatical) appreciation for a
> man that liberals believe is doing immense harm to our nation, it's citizens
> and its image via racist, reactionary and backwards-looking politics.

Of course, many people believed that the previous president was doing immense
harm to our nation, its citizens and the world at large … but I don't think
many were fired for wearing their Hope & Change or Yes We Can hats …

> Because of far-right extremists, I get scared when I see that hat, to me it
> signals some form of white supremacy that I need to stay away from. So yes,
> wearing it at work might make people uncomfortable.

And yet people have no problem whatsoever bringing stuff expressing the
opposite viewpoint into the workplace. It's _normal_ to hear people expressing
moderately- and far-left opinions in the workplace. It's not to hear them
express even centrist-right opinions.

FWIW, I don't subscribe to pretty much anything a MAGA hat conveys, and I
didn't vote for the current president.

~~~
mcguire
" _but I don 't think many were fired for wearing their Hope & Change or Yes
We Can hats …_"

[http://www.businessinsider.com/voted-for-obama-youre-
fired-2...](http://www.businessinsider.com/voted-for-obama-youre-
fired-2009-10)

[http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/another-case-of-
bein...](http://www.allgov.com/news/unusual-news/another-case-of-being-fired-
for-supporting-obama?news=840003)

[http://httpjournalsaolcomjenjer6steph.blogspot.com/2013/02/f...](http://httpjournalsaolcomjenjer6steph.blogspot.com/2013/02/fired-
for-supporting-Obama.html)

[https://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/8_bosses_who_screwed_their_...](https://www.salon.com/2012/11/20/8_bosses_who_screwed_their_employees_after_obamas_reelection/)

[http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/01/utah-fired-for-
supporti...](http://joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/01/utah-fired-for-supporting-
obama.html)

Oh, and a bonus:

[http://shoebat.com/2015/04/28/teacher-in-georgia-declares-
to...](http://shoebat.com/2015/04/28/teacher-in-georgia-declares-to-her-
students-obama-is-a-muslim-christians-should-not-support-him-the-us-
government-is-now-firing-her-for-criticizing-obama-another-story-of-christian-
persecution/)

------
notacoward
Nice little plug for Quora there. Probably tells us something about who "John"
really is. For the record, Quora is a very _poor_ place to have such debates.
It's a very strict question and answer format, with many "why did Obama kill a
hundred babies and drink their blood" questions on every political topic. Just
about any other place, including here, is better for a political debate.

------
jerkstate
Ignoring for a moment the moral judgement of whether conservatism is "right"
or "wrong" ...

I imagine this is probably how closeted gay people felt for a long time, and
still do outside of places like the Bay Area. It's poetic justice. The playing
field will probably wobble back and forth for a little while and white
conservative men will learn to play by the new rules - claiming victim status
is as good a place to start as any.

~~~
quotemstr
When I was a child, I was taught that two wrongs don't make a right.

~~~
jerkstate
so you're saying it's wrong to shame/shun/undermine those at work because you
disagree with their opinions on public policy?

~~~
quotemstr
I _am_ saying that it's wrong to shame people at work for their political
opinions and I can't fucking believe that this stance is controversial. I will
go further and say that politics doesn't belong at work.

~~~
maxerickson
Our words are insufficient.

I guess you are talking about big issue politics when you say they don't
belong at work, because it is absurd to say that people shouldn't consider the
political consequences of the things they create or actions they take on
behalf of their jobs.

------
JadeNB
Warning: fascinating article, but auto-playing video.

~~~
mcguire
...that cannot be paused until the ad plays.

------
alexryan
Sorry, but if you don't have the courage to speak your truth, then you deserve
the chains of slavery that you choose to wear and the dearth of self-respect
that comes with it.

~~~
erik_seaberg
> When you find something you can't say, what do you do with it? My advice is,
> don't say it. Or at least, pick your battles.

\- [http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/say.html)

