5 ms·

From the earlier sama post, What I Heard From Trump Supporters: > Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use t

by rfrank 10y ago

From the earlier sama post, What I Heard From Trump Supporters: > Almost everyone I asked was willing to talk to me, but almost none of them wanted me to use their names—even people from very red states were worried about getting “targeted by those people in Silicon Valley if they knew I voted for him”. One person in Silicon Valley even asked me to sign a confidentiality agreement before she would talk to me, as she worried she’d lose her job if people at her company knew she was a strong Trump supporter. .. > We also believe tech companies have an opportunity and an obligation to reduce the polarization we've helped create. Are tech employees the correct population to attempt to bridge a political divide? I'm not convinced that's the case.

EduardoBautista 10y ago
Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.
- st3v3r 10y ago
  Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry? Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and her letter, and the extreme criticism she faced from HN members? Do you think the attitude you commented with will help bridge a political divide? Because your words are exactly why I think it's laughable to expect tech employees to do anything about polarization other than make it much worse.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      No, the reason it's laughable is that the ones expected to bridge this divide are the ones who believe in rights and human dignity for everyone, not the ones who believe that others should be treated as second class citizens. Look at what happened when Obama won. Those on the left were expected to reach out to those on the right, and they did so. But then look at what happened when Trump won: Once again, the ones expected to "reach out" were those on the left! Not the ones who had just won the election, and had just come off an unprecedented level of obstructionism. So don't lecture me about how we're not bridging the divide. Start lecturing people like this first: https://mic.com/articles/172706/craig-brittain-revenge-porn-lord-and-dryvyng-ceo-hurls-racial-slurs-at-a-venture-capitalist#.zvHxgxsBX https://mic.com/articles/172706/craig-brittain-revenge-porn-... They represent the people you're chastising us for not reaching out to. I am sick and tired of being told I need to accept garbage people like these, without any effort made to make them accept others. It's not happening anymore.
      - rfrank 10y ago
        > Look at what happened when Obama won. "Elections have consequences." "I won. Deal with it." "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Politicizing the IRS. Should I pretend that Yvette Felarca [1] is a beacon of liberal thought in the same way you're doing with that nobody you linked in the Mic article? Do you assume that most Trump voters would condone that guy's behavior? Like, seriously? GOP is the strongest it's been from a local to national level since the 1920's. The internal conflict they're going through with the Freedom Caucus is something Trump voters anticipated, never Trump Republicans were a thing. Democratic leadership seems unsure whether to follow the more vocal portion of their base further to the left, or refocus on the more centrist Democrats who went Obama in '08 and '12 but voted Trump in '16. Obstructionist moves in Washington are something the left isn't traditionally fond of [2]. That's why the left should reach out. Do whatever you want, you clearly don't seem to mind the politicization. 1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/berkeley-teacher-in-the-spotlight-after-condoning-violent-uc-berkeley-protest/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/berkeley-teacher... 2. https://newrepublic.com/article/141751/democrats-will-lose-war-obstruction-republicans https://newrepublic.com/article/141751/democrats-will-lose-w...
  - ignoramceisblis 10y ago
    And you're attacking someone simply for stating that they think "Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do." From left field, you're bringing up and arguing against "having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others". And declaring that you know what EduardoBautista "wants": "no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom from speech." How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement, and then bring up your contrived ideas in a seemingly vitriolic attack against another person, I don't know. Perhaps people wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "bigotry", but I would: based on a single statement, you jump to conclusions and attack someone based on those conclusions. I think such behavior is one of the biggest problems in (a part of) American culture, and I would wager I'm not alone in thinking this.
    - BadassFractal 10y ago
      Definitely not alone, thanks for writing that.
    - warlox 10y ago
      > How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement Because that one statement is from Stormfront.
      - ignoramceisblis 10y ago
        Simply for the sake of meaningful discourse, I'd like to believe there's more to this thought. But you offer little. 1. Is there proof you have of this? Or is your statement just one of "This is something I think /they/ would say."? 2. More importantly: If a statement comes from the mouth of someone you feel is unsavory, does that make the statement invalid? Is everyone who then utters that statement unsavory, and so on? Do you think you can come to that conclusion? Particularly with EduardoBautista's thought: do you think you could come to that conclusion? Attempting to associate EduardoBautista with Stormfront (with a comment like yours) would be considered a damning accusation to many, though such tactics have become painfully commonplace. That is not what you intend, is it?
  - bdcravens 10y ago
    > espousing terrible views Except your typical Trump supporter avatar is being distilled into a handful of beliefs, even though many may have other reasons for supporting.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      Most of America seems to have forgotten that single issue voters exist on both sides.
    - st3v3r 10y ago
      At the same time, in order to support Trump, you have to feel that xenophobia, sexual assault, bigotry, and mocking of the disabled are perfectly acceptable in a world leader. So they're not entirely innocent.
  - concede_pluto 10y ago
    In practice "little tolerance for bigotry" means you might get fired for supporting a viewpoint held by the majority of Californians.
EduardoBautista 10y ago
Silicon Valley (especially SF) are all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.
PKop 10y ago
And how do they propose reducing polarization of strongly held beliefs? Forcing one side, or the other, or both.. to abandon those beliefs? Forced non-diversity of thought?

by rfrank 10y ago

EduardoBautista 10y ago

Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.

st3v3r 10y ago
Wrong. There's little tolerance for bigotry. There's nothing wrong with that. Having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others is not "diversity" or "having a different opinion". It's bigotry, plain and simple. What you want is for no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom of speech.
- rfrank 10y ago
  No, it's not wrong. Which part of his comment is the bigotry you feel like projecting? Is approval for stronger border protection bigotry? Is thinking the EO on immigration is fine bigotry? Is making assumptions about every single political opinion someone has based on a single statement bigotry? Do you think that liberals or tech employees are somehow above bigotry and treating people poorly? Remember Talia Jane and her letter, and the extreme criticism she faced from HN members? Do you think the attitude you commented with will help bridge a political divide? Because your words are exactly why I think it's laughable to expect tech employees to do anything about polarization other than make it much worse.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    No, the reason it's laughable is that the ones expected to bridge this divide are the ones who believe in rights and human dignity for everyone, not the ones who believe that others should be treated as second class citizens. Look at what happened when Obama won. Those on the left were expected to reach out to those on the right, and they did so. But then look at what happened when Trump won: Once again, the ones expected to "reach out" were those on the left! Not the ones who had just won the election, and had just come off an unprecedented level of obstructionism. So don't lecture me about how we're not bridging the divide. Start lecturing people like this first: https://mic.com/articles/172706/craig-brittain-revenge-porn-lord-and-dryvyng-ceo-hurls-racial-slurs-at-a-venture-capitalist#.zvHxgxsBX https://mic.com/articles/172706/craig-brittain-revenge-porn-... They represent the people you're chastising us for not reaching out to. I am sick and tired of being told I need to accept garbage people like these, without any effort made to make them accept others. It's not happening anymore.
    - rfrank 10y ago
      > Look at what happened when Obama won. "Elections have consequences." "I won. Deal with it." "If you like your plan, you can keep your plan." Politicizing the IRS. Should I pretend that Yvette Felarca [1] is a beacon of liberal thought in the same way you're doing with that nobody you linked in the Mic article? Do you assume that most Trump voters would condone that guy's behavior? Like, seriously? GOP is the strongest it's been from a local to national level since the 1920's. The internal conflict they're going through with the Freedom Caucus is something Trump voters anticipated, never Trump Republicans were a thing. Democratic leadership seems unsure whether to follow the more vocal portion of their base further to the left, or refocus on the more centrist Democrats who went Obama in '08 and '12 but voted Trump in '16. Obstructionist moves in Washington are something the left isn't traditionally fond of [2]. That's why the left should reach out. Do whatever you want, you clearly don't seem to mind the politicization. 1. http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/berkeley-teacher-in-the-spotlight-after-condoning-violent-uc-berkeley-protest/ http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2017/02/14/berkeley-teacher... 2. https://newrepublic.com/article/141751/democrats-will-lose-war-obstruction-republicans https://newrepublic.com/article/141751/democrats-will-lose-w...
- ignoramceisblis 10y ago
  And you're attacking someone simply for stating that they think "Silicon Valley (especially SF) is all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do." From left field, you're bringing up and arguing against "having the opinion that a class of people do not deserve the same rights as others". And declaring that you know what EduardoBautista "wants": "no one to call you out for espousing terrible views. You want freedom from consequences of speech, not freedom from speech." How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement, and then bring up your contrived ideas in a seemingly vitriolic attack against another person, I don't know. Perhaps people wouldn't call what you're exhibiting "bigotry", but I would: based on a single statement, you jump to conclusions and attack someone based on those conclusions. I think such behavior is one of the biggest problems in (a part of) American culture, and I would wager I'm not alone in thinking this.
  - BadassFractal 10y ago
    Definitely not alone, thanks for writing that.
  - warlox 10y ago
    > How you come to these conclusions based on that one statement Because that one statement is from Stormfront.
    - ignoramceisblis 10y ago
      Simply for the sake of meaningful discourse, I'd like to believe there's more to this thought. But you offer little. 1. Is there proof you have of this? Or is your statement just one of "This is something I think /they/ would say."? 2. More importantly: If a statement comes from the mouth of someone you feel is unsavory, does that make the statement invalid? Is everyone who then utters that statement unsavory, and so on? Do you think you can come to that conclusion? Particularly with EduardoBautista's thought: do you think you could come to that conclusion? Attempting to associate EduardoBautista with Stormfront (with a comment like yours) would be considered a damning accusation to many, though such tactics have become painfully commonplace. That is not what you intend, is it?
- bdcravens 10y ago
  > espousing terrible views Except your typical Trump supporter avatar is being distilled into a handful of beliefs, even though many may have other reasons for supporting.
  - rfrank 10y ago
    Most of America seems to have forgotten that single issue voters exist on both sides.
  - st3v3r 10y ago
    At the same time, in order to support Trump, you have to feel that xenophobia, sexual assault, bigotry, and mocking of the disabled are perfectly acceptable in a world leader. So they're not entirely innocent.
- concede_pluto 10y ago
  In practice "little tolerance for bigotry" means you might get fired for supporting a viewpoint held by the majority of Californians.

EduardoBautista 10y ago

Silicon Valley (especially SF) are all for diversity...as long as you think exactly like they do.

PKop 10y ago

And how do they propose reducing polarization of strongly held beliefs? Forcing one side, or the other, or both.. to abandon those beliefs? Forced non-diversity of thought?