9 ms·

I'm a Republican. Been working in or for valley companies since 1998. Engineering then business. The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly m

I'm a Republican. Been working in or for valley companies since 1998. Engineering then business. The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized. The left in the valley has become increasingly vocal, from the c-suite down, and I've been reluctant to express my views for fear of retaliation (See Mozilla's ex-CEO.) The valley isn't a place focused on the innovation and free thinking that gave it a rep as libertarian. It's focused on money and power at an international level and it's found the left worldwide as the most amenable to that path. Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Benioff, Tim Cook... These are the narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders from almost every dystopian novel or movie the last 100 years - and they are creating the very technology to give themselves real, orwellian, big-brother control, hand-in-hand with governments. I fear my future, my children's, and their grand-children.

pj_mukh 10y ago
What views do you find you can't express?
- user_0001 10y ago
  * Telling people who they can and cannot love * Telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies * Warmongering
- jgroszko 10y ago
  He mentions Brendan Eich who was ousted from Mozilla for his anti-gay views. I have little sympathy for someone who feels marginalized by views they choose to hold and express when I, as a gay man, could be marginalized simply for who I am, something I did NOT choose. While most people may be able to just put their political opinions on the shelf, any time discussion turns towards family or after-work hobbies I have to make a conscious decision based on who I'm talking to and how it could affect the situation. I can be professional and work on a temporary basis with people who hold anti-gay views, and I'm not going to go out of my way to attack them. I don't know much about how Eich ran Mozilla, I couldn't say if he deserved what happened, but I know that I would not consider a job at a company with anti-gay leadership.
  - joshuaheard 10y ago
    There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and which passed by a majority of California voters. For that political donation, he was ostracized and effectively run out of his job in Silicon Valley. San Francisco has always been one of the most liberal cities in the country, so it is no surprise to me that a liberal political bias is inherent in Silicon Valley companies. The issue arises when this bias is combined with the enormous power some of these young companies have in order to abuse those whose political views are not the same as theirs.
    - pj_mukh 10y ago
      Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.
      - deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
      - Chris2048 10y ago
        Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.
        pj_mukh 10y ago
        Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does? Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.
chubot 10y ago
I was with you until the third paragraph. You're engaging in the same kind of extreme stereotyping that you're complaining about. Those guys probably disagree profoundly with you; it doesn't mean they are evil narcissists out of a dystopian novel.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  You mean these CEO's narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders? Pretty sure they are. You mean they aren't helping the US Gov't spy on us? Pretty sure they are. You mean they aren't throwing their economic weight around in the USA to oppose republican measures while cutting deals with oppressive totalitarian leaders (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.) in order to sell product? Pretty sure they are.
  - pjc50 10y ago
    But is this a "liberal vs conservative" issue or a "big money vs the public" issue? There are plenty of other companies that throw their weight around to oppose Democrats while cutting deals with totalitarians. And other companies that donate to both sides just to make sure, such as the arms industry?
    - awesomerobot 10y ago
      I think it was mostly dumb luck in the beginning, but "liberal vs conservative" is the best distraction from "big money vs the public" in our lifetimes.
      - elgabogringo 10y ago
        It's really about freedom. And it's "Those who want to control us vs those who want freedom to control themselves." Has always been that way, always will be. Democrats and Republicans used to (largely) agree on freedom as the goal and just disagreed on the means. Now that's changed.
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
elgabogringo 10y ago
And Glenn Beck's "I looked into his eyes..." trope reminds me of George W Bush looking into Putin's soul. Facebook trending topics had/has bias the same way any mainstream newsroom has for the last 60 years - made worse by the fact that it's filled with low-paid 20-something liberal arts majors. Yet Beck can't say that. He runs a media site. Getting cut off from social networks would be a death sentence. He has to go to Zuckerberg for the publicity and he has to stay positive after the meeting... due to the real possibility of retaliation. Remember, 1984 was a warning, not a how-to manual.
YPCrumble 10y ago
Do you have any proposed solutions to these issues? I'm asking because I can't think of any that aren't extremely liberal in character, like government putting limits on these businesses or affirmative action for conservatives, as Beck discusses in the article. Perhaps he's wrong but your complaints of being "marginalized" and against the "money and power" of big business don't sound traditionally conservative. The traditional conservative line would be that you should stop complaining. Mark Zuckerberg et al are more talented and deserve the money and power they've attained because they worked harder and smarter than you have. If you would just work harder and smarter you would easily overcome these problems on your own.
- jessaustin 10y ago
  Even conservatives aren't that foolish.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  Can't reply to all the comments here, but yours is very worthy of a reply. If I have time today, I will get to it, but very busy at work already. On one hand, I understand why you have that perception of conservatives. We haven't done a good job of communicating our principles lately (which is why Trump won the nomination, in large part - but in fairness it's also a tough thing to do with so many institutions stacked against us: media, academia, govt administration, etc.) On the other hand, that's not quite a conservative viewpoint, and you've also picked up on the wrong threads in the fabric of my dystopian nightmare. In short... I wouldn't punish them for being successful. I just don't want the government helping them or working with them. The government exists to protect our rights - especially from infringement by the powerful (in business or government.) Instead the power hungry in business and government are teaming up. Teaming up to spy on us, control us, and enriching the businesses and cementing the control of bureaucracy at the same time. Eg. in spying and violating rights, where does the government end and business begin?
  - YPCrumble 10y ago
    Thanks for your reply! What you're describing is very close to what Tocqueville describes in Democracy in America - that the US has achieved a balance between three parts of society: political society (the gov't), economic society (business) and civil society (social bonds that tie people together in their communities or the judiciary). I can appreciate your self-description as "conservative" vs. "Republican", because they're very different. The Republican party has tried to so simplify their message to "lower taxes", "let the market decide", and "small government" in such a way that they're only really representing economic society. That means that they're also ignoring important checks on economic society that Tocqueville noticed were key to avoiding something like the French Revolution. (Tocqueville also speaks at length at the need for a balance between complete equality and complete inequality to avoid unrest). Republicans have eviscerated taxes on business and created economic imbalances like lower taxes for capital gains, inability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, bailouts to banks "too big to fail", restrictions on aspects of civil society like unions, "trickle-down economics", etc. These once added checks and balances to economic society and helped preserve civil society. Strong civil society is what lead to a Great America of small towns, family businesses, and general prosperity for hard working people....all of which are in danger today. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of a strong American Civil Society. You simply can't have a company propped up by government welfare and anti-union legislation like Wal-Mart and a culture of successful small businesses at the same time. It's an oxymoron. I think what conservatives are seeing is that the Republican ideal to simply remove all checks and balances on the free market has been poisoning the strong civil society they're trying to rescussitate. When you're feeling like the government is working against you, it's true. Civil society is getting eviscerated and your ideal "equality of opportunity" is getting b-slapped by the invisible hand of the rich and powerful capitalists. Even Adam Smith made great points for the necessity to check the invisible hand in the Wealth of Nations. He describes the necessity of gov't sponsored public works projects, of checking monopolies, and of public education to avoid the "torpor of the mind" that economic society would lead us to without any checks to it. Unfortunately few Republicans clamoring for lower taxes and free market economy know anything about the Wealth of Nations. Their one-dimensional policy opinions are creating more of a problem and hopefully more people will start calling themselves "conservatives" because they're trying to conserve equality of opportunity instead of simply parroting "Lower taxes", "Free market", and "Who is John Galt".
pjc50 10y ago
Whereas the right has had a long history of old-media control, especially in the UK: http://leftfootforward.org/2013/06/everyone-should-know-who-owns-the-press-for-the-sake-of-our-democracy/ http://leftfootforward.org/2013/06/everyone-should-know-who-... The US has the Koch brothers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/koch-brothers-media-tribune_n_3164875.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/koch-brothers-media... "Narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders" are something of a universal problem which the 'left' has often campaigned against, in the interest of a more level playing field. Here the US conflation of 'left', 'socialist' and 'liberal' becomes a problem in describing the politics, because while 'liberal' and 'progressive' can reasonably be attached to wealthy men in some circumstances, 'socialist' really can't. It's also interesting how the "right" have traditionally been in favour of the right of businesses to pursue profits regardless of the negative consequences to others, but now that involves throwing extreme right-wing media under the bus this comes into question. Glenn Beck manages to stick to his principles here. And I agree strongly with sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943 The media situation is not symmetrical. It's not so much left vs right or even true vs false, it's "well-thought out" vs (there is no nicer way of putting it) "bullshit". The "Views on shape of Earth differ" style of journalism is irresponsible.
yardie 10y ago
If your views are in favour of the repression and marginalisation of others then you will find yourself in the minority in the left coast. I'm sorry, the right hold some pretty reprehensible views on gay marriage, police brutality, the poor and working class, and women's rights. Then, when they are called on their bullshit all of the sudden they are the victim. The rest of the world does not apologise if reality has a liberal bias.
- CapitalistCartr 10y ago
  This is the most simplistic, binary thinking. Coke vs. Pepsi. There is more to the World than "Left vs. Right". Such as economic vs. Social. Authoritarian vs. Libertarian is another sliding scale axis and probably more relevant here.
  - yardie 10y ago
    Just saying there are two sides doesn't make it so. In all the debates there is the right and there is everyone else. Examples: Gun control: The right, absolutely no controls. Everyone else is a sliding scale of limited access, limited capacity to complete removal. The right has set themselves apart by not even wanting to negotiate. There is no sliding scale to them. Elected politicians that want to stay elected adhere to Grover Norquist and the Bush Doctrine. What's the sliding scale on that?
- Chris2048 10y ago
  called on their bullshit == fired and harassed? The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy.
  - unprepare 10y ago
    >The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy. a political group is something you choose to be a part of. This is significantly different from, say, skin color.
arnvald 10y ago
So you're being marginalized for your views which marginalize other people? (See Mozilla's ex-CEO case in which he donated money towards keeping LGBT people marginalized) Oh, the irony.
perseusprime11 10y ago
You left off Bezos.
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  Good point. Apologies
kelukelugames 10y ago
There is a difference between supporting a strong defense and donating money to anti-LGBT campaigns.
awesomerobot 10y ago
>The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized From a conservative/libertarian outlook... wouldn't that be your problem to solve? Isn't the conservative position that if we just remove big government equality should work itself out?
- elgabogringo 10y ago
  Yes and no. I'm not asking for the gov't to solve the problem, but to the extent that gov't is the problem, I'd like to see it removed. And I am doing things about it. Part of it is posting my concerns here, anonymously, because every little drop helps. Our rights are vanishing (how's the 4th ammendment doing lately?) and concerned citizens have a responsibility to speak out about it.
specialist 10y ago
"I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized." Still keen to hear which of your views have been marginalized.

pj_mukh 10y ago

What views do you find you can't express?

user_0001 10y ago
* Telling people who they can and cannot love * Telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies * Warmongering
jgroszko 10y ago
He mentions Brendan Eich who was ousted from Mozilla for his anti-gay views. I have little sympathy for someone who feels marginalized by views they choose to hold and express when I, as a gay man, could be marginalized simply for who I am, something I did NOT choose. While most people may be able to just put their political opinions on the shelf, any time discussion turns towards family or after-work hobbies I have to make a conscious decision based on who I'm talking to and how it could affect the situation. I can be professional and work on a temporary basis with people who hold anti-gay views, and I'm not going to go out of my way to attack them. I don't know much about how Eich ran Mozilla, I couldn't say if he deserved what happened, but I know that I would not consider a job at a company with anti-gay leadership.
- joshuaheard 10y ago
  There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and which passed by a majority of California voters. For that political donation, he was ostracized and effectively run out of his job in Silicon Valley. San Francisco has always been one of the most liberal cities in the country, so it is no surprise to me that a liberal political bias is inherent in Silicon Valley companies. The issue arises when this bias is combined with the enormous power some of these young companies have in order to abuse those whose political views are not the same as theirs.
  - pj_mukh 10y ago
    Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]
    - Chris2048 10y ago
      Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine? I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted? This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.
      - pj_mukh 10y ago
        Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does? Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down. P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.

chubot 10y ago

I was with you until the third paragraph. You're engaging in the same kind of extreme stereotyping that you're complaining about. Those guys probably disagree profoundly with you; it doesn't mean they are evil narcissists out of a dystopian novel.

elgabogringo 10y ago
You mean these CEO's narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders? Pretty sure they are. You mean they aren't helping the US Gov't spy on us? Pretty sure they are. You mean they aren't throwing their economic weight around in the USA to oppose republican measures while cutting deals with oppressive totalitarian leaders (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.) in order to sell product? Pretty sure they are.
- pjc50 10y ago
  But is this a "liberal vs conservative" issue or a "big money vs the public" issue? There are plenty of other companies that throw their weight around to oppose Democrats while cutting deals with totalitarians. And other companies that donate to both sides just to make sure, such as the arms industry?
  - awesomerobot 10y ago
    I think it was mostly dumb luck in the beginning, but "liberal vs conservative" is the best distraction from "big money vs the public" in our lifetimes.
    - elgabogringo 10y ago
      It's really about freedom. And it's "Those who want to control us vs those who want freedom to control themselves." Has always been that way, always will be. Democrats and Republicans used to (largely) agree on freedom as the goal and just disagreed on the means. Now that's changed.
  - elgabogringo 10y ago

elgabogringo 10y ago

And Glenn Beck's "I looked into his eyes..." trope reminds me of George W Bush looking into Putin's soul. Facebook trending topics had/has bias the same way any mainstream newsroom has for the last 60 years - made worse by the fact that it's filled with low-paid 20-something liberal arts majors. Yet Beck can't say that. He runs a media site. Getting cut off from social networks would be a death sentence. He has to go to Zuckerberg for the publicity and he has to stay positive after the meeting... due to the real possibility of retaliation. Remember, 1984 was a warning, not a how-to manual.

YPCrumble 10y ago

Do you have any proposed solutions to these issues? I'm asking because I can't think of any that aren't extremely liberal in character, like government putting limits on these businesses or affirmative action for conservatives, as Beck discusses in the article. Perhaps he's wrong but your complaints of being "marginalized" and against the "money and power" of big business don't sound traditionally conservative. The traditional conservative line would be that you should stop complaining. Mark Zuckerberg et al are more talented and deserve the money and power they've attained because they worked harder and smarter than you have. If you would just work harder and smarter you would easily overcome these problems on your own.

jessaustin 10y ago
Even conservatives aren't that foolish.
elgabogringo 10y ago
Can't reply to all the comments here, but yours is very worthy of a reply. If I have time today, I will get to it, but very busy at work already. On one hand, I understand why you have that perception of conservatives. We haven't done a good job of communicating our principles lately (which is why Trump won the nomination, in large part - but in fairness it's also a tough thing to do with so many institutions stacked against us: media, academia, govt administration, etc.) On the other hand, that's not quite a conservative viewpoint, and you've also picked up on the wrong threads in the fabric of my dystopian nightmare. In short... I wouldn't punish them for being successful. I just don't want the government helping them or working with them. The government exists to protect our rights - especially from infringement by the powerful (in business or government.) Instead the power hungry in business and government are teaming up. Teaming up to spy on us, control us, and enriching the businesses and cementing the control of bureaucracy at the same time. Eg. in spying and violating rights, where does the government end and business begin?
- YPCrumble 10y ago
  Thanks for your reply! What you're describing is very close to what Tocqueville describes in Democracy in America - that the US has achieved a balance between three parts of society: political society (the gov't), economic society (business) and civil society (social bonds that tie people together in their communities or the judiciary). I can appreciate your self-description as "conservative" vs. "Republican", because they're very different. The Republican party has tried to so simplify their message to "lower taxes", "let the market decide", and "small government" in such a way that they're only really representing economic society. That means that they're also ignoring important checks on economic society that Tocqueville noticed were key to avoiding something like the French Revolution. (Tocqueville also speaks at length at the need for a balance between complete equality and complete inequality to avoid unrest). Republicans have eviscerated taxes on business and created economic imbalances like lower taxes for capital gains, inability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, bailouts to banks "too big to fail", restrictions on aspects of civil society like unions, "trickle-down economics", etc. These once added checks and balances to economic society and helped preserve civil society. Strong civil society is what lead to a Great America of small towns, family businesses, and general prosperity for hard working people....all of which are in danger today. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of a strong American Civil Society. You simply can't have a company propped up by government welfare and anti-union legislation like Wal-Mart and a culture of successful small businesses at the same time. It's an oxymoron. I think what conservatives are seeing is that the Republican ideal to simply remove all checks and balances on the free market has been poisoning the strong civil society they're trying to rescussitate. When you're feeling like the government is working against you, it's true. Civil society is getting eviscerated and your ideal "equality of opportunity" is getting b-slapped by the invisible hand of the rich and powerful capitalists. Even Adam Smith made great points for the necessity to check the invisible hand in the Wealth of Nations. He describes the necessity of gov't sponsored public works projects, of checking monopolies, and of public education to avoid the "torpor of the mind" that economic society would lead us to without any checks to it. Unfortunately few Republicans clamoring for lower taxes and free market economy know anything about the Wealth of Nations. Their one-dimensional policy opinions are creating more of a problem and hopefully more people will start calling themselves "conservatives" because they're trying to conserve equality of opportunity instead of simply parroting "Lower taxes", "Free market", and "Who is John Galt".

pjc50 10y ago

Whereas the right has had a long history of old-media control, especially in the UK: http://leftfootforward.org/2013/06/everyone-should-know-who-owns-the-press-for-the-sake-of-our-democracy/ http://leftfootforward.org/2013/06/everyone-should-know-who-... The US has the Koch brothers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/koch-brothers-media-tribune_n_3164875.html http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/koch-brothers-media... "Narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders" are something of a universal problem which the 'left' has often campaigned against, in the interest of a more level playing field. Here the US conflation of 'left', 'socialist' and 'liberal' becomes a problem in describing the politics, because while 'liberal' and 'progressive' can reasonably be attached to wealthy men in some circumstances, 'socialist' really can't. It's also interesting how the "right" have traditionally been in favour of the right of businesses to pursue profits regardless of the negative consequences to others, but now that involves throwing extreme right-wing media under the bus this comes into question. Glenn Beck manages to stick to his principles here. And I agree strongly with sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943 The media situation is not symmetrical. It's not so much left vs right or even true vs false, it's "well-thought out" vs (there is no nicer way of putting it) "bullshit". The "Views on shape of Earth differ" style of journalism is irresponsible.

yardie 10y ago

If your views are in favour of the repression and marginalisation of others then you will find yourself in the minority in the left coast. I'm sorry, the right hold some pretty reprehensible views on gay marriage, police brutality, the poor and working class, and women's rights. Then, when they are called on their bullshit all of the sudden they are the victim. The rest of the world does not apologise if reality has a liberal bias.

CapitalistCartr 10y ago
This is the most simplistic, binary thinking. Coke vs. Pepsi. There is more to the World than "Left vs. Right". Such as economic vs. Social. Authoritarian vs. Libertarian is another sliding scale axis and probably more relevant here.
- yardie 10y ago
  Just saying there are two sides doesn't make it so. In all the debates there is the right and there is everyone else. Examples: Gun control: The right, absolutely no controls. Everyone else is a sliding scale of limited access, limited capacity to complete removal. The right has set themselves apart by not even wanting to negotiate. There is no sliding scale to them. Elected politicians that want to stay elected adhere to Grover Norquist and the Bush Doctrine. What's the sliding scale on that?
Chris2048 10y ago
called on their bullshit == fired and harassed? The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy.
- unprepare 10y ago
  >The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy. a political group is something you choose to be a part of. This is significantly different from, say, skin color.

arnvald 10y ago

So you're being marginalized for your views which marginalize other people? (See Mozilla's ex-CEO case in which he donated money towards keeping LGBT people marginalized) Oh, the irony.

perseusprime11 10y ago

You left off Bezos.

elgabogringo 10y ago
Good point. Apologies

kelukelugames 10y ago

There is a difference between supporting a strong defense and donating money to anti-LGBT campaigns.

awesomerobot 10y ago

>The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized From a conservative/libertarian outlook... wouldn't that be your problem to solve? Isn't the conservative position that if we just remove big government equality should work itself out?

elgabogringo 10y ago
Yes and no. I'm not asking for the gov't to solve the problem, but to the extent that gov't is the problem, I'd like to see it removed. And I am doing things about it. Part of it is posting my concerns here, anonymously, because every little drop helps. Our rights are vanishing (how's the 4th ammendment doing lately?) and concerned citizens have a responsibility to speak out about it.

specialist 10y ago

"I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized." Still keen to hear which of your views have been marginalized.