5 ms·

All of the virtue signaling and moral feather preening surrounding this issue is something to behold. It seems we're entering a new era where businesses engage

All of the virtue signaling and moral feather preening surrounding this issue is something to behold. It seems we're entering a new era where businesses engage in political activism as well as simple commerce. If that's the case, it's only fair that other groups, whose politics may differ from the activist-businesses', start using politics to weaken those businesses and counter their influence. For example, it's well known that Airbnb operates under the radar of housing regulations in many localities. Perhaps people who disagree with Airbnb's politics should organize and bring about legislation that will eliminate or severely curtail Airbnb's ability to do business in their town, county or state. Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level. The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. They seek to impose social and economic penalties on those who hold political views different than their own. And they've done this, fairly secure in the knowledge that there would be few or no repercussions against them. But I have a feeling that's starting to change.

acjohnson55 10y ago
> The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. Funny, I see it as almost the exact opposite. The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. I'd characterize the corporate response as businesses trying to operate in a cosmopolitan market, in a climate of nativist politics. And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. It seems we see how serious folks actually are about that idea, in these rare instances when it plays itself out in reality. Because let's also not pretend that this represents some type of long-term investment in social justice. And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.
- rhapsodic 10y ago
  > And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights. It is ironic, I'll admit. But in total war, there are no rules. You inflict suffering on your enemy by whatever means are available. The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint because of the answer one of the family members gave to a reporter. They made an example of this family for the rest of the country to learn from: "Publicly express a political opinion we disagree with, and run the risk of being destroyed." It's only fair that Ben Chesky and Airbnb incur a similar risk for their forays into the political arena. And they're very rich, powerful and well-connected people, who are backed by other rich, powerful and well-connected people. It would take something as powerful as a Republican-controlled federal government to do them some serious damage. And if that happens, I'm certainly not to rush to their defense.
  - grzm 10y ago
    The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint Would you elaborate on this? What are you referring to?
    - rhapsodic 10y ago
      Memories Pizza. Google it.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Thanks! If you're going to bring up Memories Pizza, I think it's fair to compare this to Pizzagate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory The idea that we have no further recourse other than total war is very troubling. I don't think a lot of people are willing to give up trying to work together quite yet.
        caminante 10y ago
        The only common denominator appears to be pizza. Memories Pizza's owners were interviewed about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act [0] and answered a hypothetical question by saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, but they'd serve anyone. The reporter ran a headline, "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service." This was false on numerous levels, but went viral, triggering a backlash. Pizzagate is a human trafficking conspiracy with different mechanics. I guess Comet Ping Pong employees got backlash for allegations, but the similarities end there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_(Indiana)#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...
- tinalumfoil 10y ago
  I don't know if we just interpreted the parent differently, but I don't follow your reasoning. > The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Obama's a well-known politician. It would be pretty crazy to say we can't attack or protest our own government. I'd be interested in how you extracted this point from OP, because I completely missed it. > And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. I also don't see the connection to government intervention. Businesses have the same rights as people to express their opinions, investors/owners willing. Obviously there's consequences to those actions, and certain SV startups are already on thin ice as far as their legal ability to operate is concerned. But it's up to the American constituency if they want to bring these issues to their representatives attention. > And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights. If a constituency doesn't like what a business is doing it is fully within the rights of the constituency to change to change the law. Despite the law, people tend to be really unsympathetic to wealthy businesses, and political lobbying law has been ripe to change for years.
woodruffw 10y ago
> All of the virtue signaling and moral feather preening surrounding this issue is something to behold. Spare us the rhetoric, please. The only purpose it serves is to confirm your alienation. Business mixing with activism is nothing new, although progressive businesses engaging in activism is. You'd do well to remember the recent fracas over churches and resorts choosing not to host gay weddings. That's conservative activism. > Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level. Such laws would be a stunning display of hypocrisy from a party that claims to be against federal interference in markets. It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down. > The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. I hear this sentiment often. While liberals (such as myself) have benefited in terms of visibility from the last 8 years, I see no signs of "total war" on my college campus or in my neighborhood back home. There is general agreement that conservative (and Trumpian) policies are categorically bad for all Americans, but this doesn't reflect a contempt for conservatives or Trump voters as people. More than anything, there's a feeling of bewilderment stemming from the conservative party's unconservative choice of candidate. Edit: I realized that I forgot to add this in the last paragraph: The idea of the left engaging in "total war" is discomforting for another reason - it doesn't accurately reflect the facts of this past election. Over the last 12 months, only one party selected a candidate who hasn't made any attempts at bipartisanship. Whether or not you agreed with HRC's policies (I didn't, on many occasions), she made a conspicuous effort to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The more progressive contingent mocked her for this, but it's still a showing of good faith. No such good faith attempt was made by the Trump campaign. It's worth noting, however, that Trump's campaign isn't really to blame for the aforementioned. He merely tapped into a talking point that the GOP has been brewing since the Watergate scandal - that the media can't be trusted, and that the party must be the source of facts. Combined with Gingrich's 1996 Contract With America and the reactionary appearance of the Tea Party in response to the Obama administration, the claim that it is the left that has waged war looks, at best, shaky.
- phil21 10y ago
  Let's say I disagree with you vehemently on this. I actually don't have an opinion (for the purposes of this comment) but I think there is a point to be had here the OP is trying to get at that is very important. You obviously were not in fear of career repercussions by posting your reply. I guarantee you that there are people reading your post now, who want to post a reasonable disagreement from the "conservative" viewpoint but will not because they are in (legitimate) fear of what negative affects it will have on their future employment. That is what I read as the OPs comment. Decades of that adds up, and I certainly have noticed on HN and other industry meeting places you are allowed to express politics as long as it's that of the majority. You can explain this from the point of view of every actor in the process acting rationally in their own self interest - but it still creates a problem of defacto silencing political belief, and even more importantly only letting those radical (or rich) enough to not care about social acceptance join the conversations as a dissenting opinion. That is troubling to me. When you only see one side feel free enough to take practical advantage of their right to free speech something is seriously wrong - and why I feel that the OP is far more correct in that this is more like war than political discourse at this point. I honestly don't know if you can walk it back, and the road that puts us on scares me. As someone who is seen as "neutral" in the workplace, I have people from both sides dump on me in private. There is a lot more common ground than most think, but as long as people live in fear of having genuine honest political arguments I simply cannot see these trends turning around. My personal anecdote is that it's getting worse over time - not better. Edit: spelling

acjohnson55 10y ago

> The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. Funny, I see it as almost the exact opposite. The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. I'd characterize the corporate response as businesses trying to operate in a cosmopolitan market, in a climate of nativist politics. And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. It seems we see how serious folks actually are about that idea, in these rare instances when it plays itself out in reality. Because let's also not pretend that this represents some type of long-term investment in social justice. And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights.

rhapsodic 10y ago
> And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights. It is ironic, I'll admit. But in total war, there are no rules. You inflict suffering on your enemy by whatever means are available. The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint because of the answer one of the family members gave to a reporter. They made an example of this family for the rest of the country to learn from: "Publicly express a political opinion we disagree with, and run the risk of being destroyed." It's only fair that Ben Chesky and Airbnb incur a similar risk for their forays into the political arena. And they're very rich, powerful and well-connected people, who are backed by other rich, powerful and well-connected people. It would take something as powerful as a Republican-controlled federal government to do them some serious damage. And if that happens, I'm certainly not to rush to their defense.
- grzm 10y ago
  The left gleefully destroyed a family-run pizza joint Would you elaborate on this? What are you referring to?
  - rhapsodic 10y ago
    Memories Pizza. Google it.
    - grzm 10y ago
      Thanks! If you're going to bring up Memories Pizza, I think it's fair to compare this to Pizzagate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pizzagate_conspiracy_theory The idea that we have no further recourse other than total war is very troubling. I don't think a lot of people are willing to give up trying to work together quite yet.
      - caminante 10y ago
        The only common denominator appears to be pizza. Memories Pizza's owners were interviewed about Indiana's Religious Freedom Restoration Act [0] and answered a hypothetical question by saying they wouldn't cater a gay wedding, but they'd serve anyone. The reporter ran a headline, "RFRA: First Michiana business to publicly deny same-sex service." This was false on numerous levels, but went viral, triggering a backlash. Pizzagate is a human trafficking conspiracy with different mechanics. I guess Comet Ping Pong employees got backlash for allegations, but the similarities end there. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act_(Indiana)#Impact https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_...
tinalumfoil 10y ago
I don't know if we just interpreted the parent differently, but I don't follow your reasoning. > The backlash against Obama was a weaponization of politics on a scale not seen since the Civil Rights and anti-Vietnam War movements. Obama's a well-known politician. It would be pretty crazy to say we can't attack or protest our own government. I'd be interested in how you extracted this point from OP, because I completely missed it. > And your viewpoint feels especially ironic when a common conservative/libertarian argument against government interventions to advance civil rights is that the market will work it out. I also don't see the connection to government intervention. Businesses have the same rights as people to express their opinions, investors/owners willing. Obviously there's consequences to those actions, and certain SV startups are already on thin ice as far as their legal ability to operate is concerned. But it's up to the American constituency if they want to bring these issues to their representatives attention. > And is doubly ironic that you seem to be advocating that the government punish a private entity for stances that seem well within its rights. If a constituency doesn't like what a business is doing it is fully within the rights of the constituency to change to change the law. Despite the law, people tend to be really unsympathetic to wealthy businesses, and political lobbying law has been ripe to change for years.

woodruffw 10y ago

> All of the virtue signaling and moral feather preening surrounding this issue is something to behold. Spare us the rhetoric, please. The only purpose it serves is to confirm your alienation. Business mixing with activism is nothing new, although progressive businesses engaging in activism is. You'd do well to remember the recent fracas over churches and resorts choosing not to host gay weddings. That's conservative activism. > Or perhaps the Republicans, though new federal liability laws, should render Airbnb's business model non-viable at the national level. Such laws would be a stunning display of hypocrisy from a party that claims to be against federal interference in markets. It would also normalize (or continue the trend of normalizing) political punishment for companies that don't agree with the current administration's (non-legal) policies. Regardless of who's in power, that's not a good road to go down. > The left has been engaging in total war against the right for about a decade. I hear this sentiment often. While liberals (such as myself) have benefited in terms of visibility from the last 8 years, I see no signs of "total war" on my college campus or in my neighborhood back home. There is general agreement that conservative (and Trumpian) policies are categorically bad for all Americans, but this doesn't reflect a contempt for conservatives or Trump voters as people. More than anything, there's a feeling of bewilderment stemming from the conservative party's unconservative choice of candidate. Edit: I realized that I forgot to add this in the last paragraph: The idea of the left engaging in "total war" is discomforting for another reason - it doesn't accurately reflect the facts of this past election. Over the last 12 months, only one party selected a candidate who hasn't made any attempts at bipartisanship. Whether or not you agreed with HRC's policies (I didn't, on many occasions), she made a conspicuous effort to appeal to both liberals and conservatives. The more progressive contingent mocked her for this, but it's still a showing of good faith. No such good faith attempt was made by the Trump campaign. It's worth noting, however, that Trump's campaign isn't really to blame for the aforementioned. He merely tapped into a talking point that the GOP has been brewing since the Watergate scandal - that the media can't be trusted, and that the party must be the source of facts. Combined with Gingrich's 1996 Contract With America and the reactionary appearance of the Tea Party in response to the Obama administration, the claim that it is the left that has waged war looks, at best, shaky.

phil21 10y ago
Let's say I disagree with you vehemently on this. I actually don't have an opinion (for the purposes of this comment) but I think there is a point to be had here the OP is trying to get at that is very important. You obviously were not in fear of career repercussions by posting your reply. I guarantee you that there are people reading your post now, who want to post a reasonable disagreement from the "conservative" viewpoint but will not because they are in (legitimate) fear of what negative affects it will have on their future employment. That is what I read as the OPs comment. Decades of that adds up, and I certainly have noticed on HN and other industry meeting places you are allowed to express politics as long as it's that of the majority. You can explain this from the point of view of every actor in the process acting rationally in their own self interest - but it still creates a problem of defacto silencing political belief, and even more importantly only letting those radical (or rich) enough to not care about social acceptance join the conversations as a dissenting opinion. That is troubling to me. When you only see one side feel free enough to take practical advantage of their right to free speech something is seriously wrong - and why I feel that the OP is far more correct in that this is more like war than political discourse at this point. I honestly don't know if you can walk it back, and the road that puts us on scares me. As someone who is seen as "neutral" in the workplace, I have people from both sides dump on me in private. There is a lot more common ground than most think, but as long as people live in fear of having genuine honest political arguments I simply cannot see these trends turning around. My personal anecdote is that it's getting worse over time - not better. Edit: spelling