8 ms·

The mere fact that it has to be said is concerning. Even more so when it is happening at an institution that is among the most meritocratic in SV. It speaks vol

The mere fact that it has to be said is concerning. Even more so when it is happening at an institution that is among the most meritocratic in SV. It speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant feedback loops. It is quite interesting that it is so dangerous for your career to hold "alternative" views (wrt. to mainstream ideologies there) in a place that has cultish adoration of diversity as an end in itself. Even more so interesting to see American progressives wear the clothes of puritanism and McCarthysm. The fascist menace is threatening American society! Quick! You must make sure that those two engineers who have said they would vote Trump lose their jobs! The fascists want to infiltrate every layer of society to bring down the glorious progress. Call this hotline and get them arrested and tried for treason against Progress. Otherwise, brace yourself to hear the drums of nationalism beat again and bring the world on the brinks of genocide. If you are not with us you are against us! Anyway, good on Sam for not taking part in that collective hysteria. I must say the hang-over from the current kool-aid binge drinking party is going to be harsh. So far this attitude of shaming people for not embracing the beautiful and unquestionable axiology of Progress has only been furthermore polarization and resentment. If you want to allow companies to fire their employees based on the political stance they take during a national election; you should, by the same logic, allow them to discriminate based on gender, age or ethnicity. Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices. Which, of course, does not fly well when it starts impacting you negatively because you do not hold the "right" opinions.

int_19h 10y ago
> Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices. If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong (cries of "Godwin!" go here). I mean, money's money, right? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable, and genocide is just a political question, on which the German people have spoken (and even if they didn't, again, whether democracy is good or not is also a political question). But no, it doesn't work that way. We do actually expect corporations to be political to some extent. The only real question here is what that extent is. I don't really have a problem drawing the line at someone like Trump. If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected. Unless, of course, you really do think that IBM was in the right.
- cperciva 10y ago
  There's a difference between being neutral on political questions and being neutral on crimes against humanity. Knowingly and deliberately assisting in a genocide is illegal; supporting fringe political candidates is fortunately not.
  - dickman3000 10y ago
    A fringe candidate who advocates for war crimes and dismantling the democratic institutions of America. I think you're giving Trump too much of a pass here.
    - Typhon 10y ago
      I agree that however hateful and ridiculous he gets, Trump is not a nazi. I roll my eyes whenever someone calls him a nazi or implies he is a nazi. For example, this guy : https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785769454516916228?lang=fr https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785769454516916228?lang=fr I think there's a contradiction in PG's (and Sam Altman's) public attitude towards Trump and their attitude regarding Thiel. I mean either Trump is beyond the pale, in which case they should not associate themselves with any of his supporters, or he is not, in which case they should cut the goddamn hyperbole.
    - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
      Freedom is the right to be wrong. Freedom of speech isn't fought at Michaelangelo's David; its fought at Larry Flynt's Hustler.
    - baddox 10y ago
      Can you name a politician at the national level with an executive position or foreign-policy-related legislative position who doesn't advocate war crimes?
    - cperciva 10y ago
      I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm giving Trump supporters a pass, because I believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position they espouse. (In fact, with Trump's many contradictory statements, this is guaranteed for any of his supporters!) If one of your employees advocates for genocide, go ahead and fire them. If one of your employees supports a candidate who advocates for genocide -- well, it might call into question their judgment, but maybe they like the rest of the platform and think that the call for genocide is mere hyperbole.
sjg007 10y ago
Citizens United basically allows corporations to compel political participation of their employees regardless of their politics.
- fixxer 10y ago
  No, unions do that. Corporations do not extract money from their employees for political purposes.
  - sjg007 10y ago
    I'll just leave this here: http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-growing-threat http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-grow... Unions are a completely different aspect of employment.
    - fixxer 10y ago
      If you are outraged by corporate political ideology being forced on employees, then surely you are outraged over union political platforms that go above and beyond the objectives of a union (to maximize compensation) and serve to increase labor competition and depress wages, right? At a union shop, a worker has no choice but to financially support the political agenda of the union, even if that agenda runs counter to the worker's best interest and/or ideals. Exactly. The. Same. Public sector unions take this further by creating a system in which management and labor are both operating under the union banner in a complete conflict of interest. The whole situation is fucked and there is zero moral high ground in picking a side, much like our Presidential candidates.
appleflaxen 10y ago
> It speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant feedback loops. telling a corporation to sanction, discipline, or fire a partner is not militant. the only militant behavior is coming from Trump, when he talks about dropping HRC's security detail and seeing what happens. diversity of opinion is important, but advocacy of violence and worse - the commission of sexual violence against women - is not. I'm not certain that ending Thiele's partnership is warranted - I don't know enough about the facts. But this is more than just an "unpopular opinion".
- Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
  This detente we have where we don't fire people for their political views is extremely valuable, and we should be very very wary about breaking it.
  - appleflaxen 10y ago
    100% agree. But there is a point at which a candidate /is/ too extreme. All we're doing is having a discussion about where that point is. Do you disagree that that point exists? It's funny to see my comments laden with downvotes from (presumably) the people who wanted to respect diversity of opinion.
ralmidani 10y ago
Your logic resembles that which says people who use Copyleft licenses are not truly committed to Freedom because they don't allow use of their code in non-free programs. Being committed to diversity-- or freedom, or any ideal--does not mean you have to be nice toward or even tolerate the antithesis of that ideal.
archagon 10y ago
This argument can hardly apply when the choice is between "politics as usual" and "carpet bomb the constitution". Your fascism screed might be intended to come off as sarcastic, but Trump has literally threatened to deport legal citizens, kill innocent civilians abroad, shut down unfriendly newspapers, and imprison his political rivals. I wonder: what sort of rhetoric would it take for people to recognize the seeds of fascism? And no, corporations are certainly not politically neutral agents, for better or for worse. In fact, I'd say they're among the most powerful players in shaping the future of the world.

int_19h 10y ago

> Because yes, what you are essentially saying is that corporations are not politically neutral agents. They can hold and enforce ideologies when it comes to their human management practices. If corporations are expected to be truly "politically neutral agents", then IBM providing services to the Nazis was nothing wrong (cries of "Godwin!" go here). I mean, money's money, right? They have a responsibility to their shareholders to be profitable, and genocide is just a political question, on which the German people have spoken (and even if they didn't, again, whether democracy is good or not is also a political question). But no, it doesn't work that way. We do actually expect corporations to be political to some extent. The only real question here is what that extent is. I don't really have a problem drawing the line at someone like Trump. If you do, that's fine, but all that pompous talk about puritanism and McCarthysm is misdirected. Unless, of course, you really do think that IBM was in the right.

cperciva 10y ago
There's a difference between being neutral on political questions and being neutral on crimes against humanity. Knowingly and deliberately assisting in a genocide is illegal; supporting fringe political candidates is fortunately not.
- dickman3000 10y ago
  A fringe candidate who advocates for war crimes and dismantling the democratic institutions of America. I think you're giving Trump too much of a pass here.
  - Typhon 10y ago
    I agree that however hateful and ridiculous he gets, Trump is not a nazi. I roll my eyes whenever someone calls him a nazi or implies he is a nazi. For example, this guy : https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785769454516916228?lang=fr https://twitter.com/paulg/status/785769454516916228?lang=fr I think there's a contradiction in PG's (and Sam Altman's) public attitude towards Trump and their attitude regarding Thiel. I mean either Trump is beyond the pale, in which case they should not associate themselves with any of his supporters, or he is not, in which case they should cut the goddamn hyperbole.
  - CapitalistCartr 10y ago
    Freedom is the right to be wrong. Freedom of speech isn't fought at Michaelangelo's David; its fought at Larry Flynt's Hustler.
  - baddox 10y ago
    Can you name a politician at the national level with an executive position or foreign-policy-related legislative position who doesn't advocate war crimes?
  - cperciva 10y ago
    I'm not giving Trump a pass. I'm giving Trump supporters a pass, because I believe it's possible to support a candidate without supporting every position they espouse. (In fact, with Trump's many contradictory statements, this is guaranteed for any of his supporters!) If one of your employees advocates for genocide, go ahead and fire them. If one of your employees supports a candidate who advocates for genocide -- well, it might call into question their judgment, but maybe they like the rest of the platform and think that the call for genocide is mere hyperbole.

sjg007 10y ago

Citizens United basically allows corporations to compel political participation of their employees regardless of their politics.

fixxer 10y ago
No, unions do that. Corporations do not extract money from their employees for political purposes.
- sjg007 10y ago
  I'll just leave this here: http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-growing-threat http://prospect.org/article/employer-political-coercion-grow... Unions are a completely different aspect of employment.
  - fixxer 10y ago
    If you are outraged by corporate political ideology being forced on employees, then surely you are outraged over union political platforms that go above and beyond the objectives of a union (to maximize compensation) and serve to increase labor competition and depress wages, right? At a union shop, a worker has no choice but to financially support the political agenda of the union, even if that agenda runs counter to the worker's best interest and/or ideals. Exactly. The. Same. Public sector unions take this further by creating a system in which management and labor are both operating under the union banner in a complete conflict of interest. The whole situation is fucked and there is zero moral high ground in picking a side, much like our Presidential candidates.

appleflaxen 10y ago

> It speaks volume about the depth and toxicity of some self-reinforcing militant feedback loops. telling a corporation to sanction, discipline, or fire a partner is not militant. the only militant behavior is coming from Trump, when he talks about dropping HRC's security detail and seeing what happens. diversity of opinion is important, but advocacy of violence and worse - the commission of sexual violence against women - is not. I'm not certain that ending Thiele's partnership is warranted - I don't know enough about the facts. But this is more than just an "unpopular opinion".

Moshe_Silnorin 10y ago
This detente we have where we don't fire people for their political views is extremely valuable, and we should be very very wary about breaking it.
- appleflaxen 10y ago
  100% agree. But there is a point at which a candidate /is/ too extreme. All we're doing is having a discussion about where that point is. Do you disagree that that point exists? It's funny to see my comments laden with downvotes from (presumably) the people who wanted to respect diversity of opinion.

ralmidani 10y ago

Your logic resembles that which says people who use Copyleft licenses are not truly committed to Freedom because they don't allow use of their code in non-free programs. Being committed to diversity-- or freedom, or any ideal--does not mean you have to be nice toward or even tolerate the antithesis of that ideal.

archagon 10y ago

This argument can hardly apply when the choice is between "politics as usual" and "carpet bomb the constitution". Your fascism screed might be intended to come off as sarcastic, but Trump has literally threatened to deport legal citizens, kill innocent civilians abroad, shut down unfriendly newspapers, and imprison his political rivals. I wonder: what sort of rhetoric would it take for people to recognize the seeds of fascism? And no, corporations are certainly not politically neutral agents, for better or for worse. In fact, I'd say they're among the most powerful players in shaping the future of the world.