6 ms·

Google is substantially located in the Bay Area. Of course they hate ideological diversity, in practice if not in principle. It is an attitude common in their w

Google is substantially located in the Bay Area. Of course they hate ideological diversity, in practice if not in principle. It is an attitude common in their workforce. This is a tendentious statement, so I will relate my own experience. Once upon a time I was working in California, at a tiny startup, and was reading some election results from "back home" in North Carolina, which had just passed Amendment One by about a 3:2 margin. Observing the results thoughtfully, my coworker casually remarked "wow, 60% of North Carolina is literally horrible, terrible people." I just quietly sat back and thought "why, how nice of you, sir, to refer to some unknown fraction of my family and the friends I had growing up in such a lovely manner." At one point my girlfriend (now an ex-girlfriend) attended a party that he was hosting. She had just left Missouri out of disgust for its Missouri-ness, and was very much in love with San Francisco and its people – yet left the party modestly offended – not for saying anyone in particular was bad this time, but just with all the best of intentions saying it was inevitable that they'd all come around to the modern views on things like gay marriage (and, in the process, utterly trivializing their religion, values, and world-views). I do not seek to cast him as a bad person for this remark. This is a man who, if anything, is one of the nicest people I know, easily far above the average, and a quitessential San Franciscan (well above and beyond your typical tech hipster). But he is immersed in a culture which specifically and explicitly denies human dignity of people who are not alike and do not think alike. This is very sad. You would think if there is one lesson we could take from the history of the US, religious tolerance in the colonies, slavery, the Civil War, the Civil Rights Movement, our wars with Native Americans, the likes of the Japanese Internment, women's suffrage, everything ... if there's one resounding strain here, it's that you don't un-people people. (but it's okay to un-people these people, because they're bad people!) In conclusion: I sympathize with this guy who wrote this manifesto. It is also unfortunate that, from what I hear and understand of the matter, this guy is factually in error, probably sexist, and almost certainly undermining his cause.

DougBTX 9y ago
> "wow, 60% of North Carolina is literally horrible, terrible people." The worst thing here is the suggestion that there was 100% turnout, instead it was closer to 30%, so only about 20% voted for it. The amendment was found unconstitutional a short time afterwards anyway, finding that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone.
- votepaunchy 9y ago
  Equality is a fundamental right. There is nothing stopping a state from eliminating marriage under the 10th amendment.
- fennecfoxen 9y ago
  > The worst thing here The worst thing? Suppose there is a referendum in, I don't know, Venezuela or something; that's adequately hypothetical. Imagine they put a referendum banning gay marriage on the ballots in Venezuela, and it passes with similar levels of turnout and support. There's a guy in your office from Venezuela who's reading about it, a little bit troubled by the news, and you say, "wow, I guess 60% of Venezuelans are literally horrible terrible people." Do you think that he is going to be most upset with the precision and accuracy present in the percentage you used, and not, say, the idea that you just casually pass judgement on what might easily be 60% of his family, extended family, friends, former co-workers, schoolmates, acquaintances, and the like? Not with the way you dismiss entirely their value as moral actors, without any further attempts to seek understanding of them as human beings, pre-emptively closing the door on learning about their culture and their values, not even pretending that you've an interest in understanding their lives as flawed, imperfect human beings, implicitly disclaiming all need to sympathize with their troubles? Not with the way that you, hailing from a background of substantial privilege in the San Francisco Bay Area, college-educated, and now happily earning six figures in a software job, feel that it's right and just to look down on these people, some of whom are fighting to live somewhere better than a shack in the woods?
  - deebeeoh 9y ago
    Fighting their way out of their shack in the woods while, in their spare time taking a moment to vote against gay marriage? What a misunderstood nobility... People are going to a lot of trouble to defend having lousy values. It doesn't mean that's all you are, that one opinion, but having other aspects to your life doesn't let you off the hook. We all have troubles.
    - heartbreak 9y ago
throwaway2812 9y ago
>from what I hear and understand of the matter, this guy is factually in error, probably sexist, and almost certainly undermining his cause. That's my take too, having read the doc. Reminds me of The_Donald -- sometimes correctly identifies an issue, but misses the point entirely on so many levels and does more harm than good to whatever the author's goal was. >you don't un-people people And that's exactly how the doc started from the get-go. It decried anyone who dared disagree with it as shunning communication. That's really not the case -- people discussed it, and disagreed with it. It reminds me of those religious freedom laws, that guarantee people's freedom to discriminate to protect their own beliefs. The more layers you follow down, the more of a contradiction the laws become.
cannonedhamster 9y ago
you don't un-people people. But without trying to devolve into the actual politics of it, a large portion of Americans (I'd wager it's the majority) believe that it's okay to exclude people for one reason or another. Americans have voted since Pres. GW Bush on protectionist principles, even President Obama was barely for extending rights until he was forced into it by VP Biden. America is in the middle of a massive demographic shift from the Baby Boomers who have ruined the economy, created massive public debt, destroyed worker protections, and shifted the political power from those in the middle to those at the very top. They did this by unpeopling people. This was an intentional thing done by the religious right starting in the late 70s and really gaining steam in the 80s. Their brand of us vs them found a receptive audience in America, because the Baby Boomers are afraid that what they've created will change, and for the moment there's more of them than other voting populations. Of course this is the natural outcome. Look at how many centrist politicians have left. So yes I personally disagree with what this guy said, but in a public sphere he has every right to say it. Inside of Google however they have the right to fire him for any reason, because there are no worker protections for free speech.
threatofrain 9y ago
Of course Bay Area people hate ideological diversity? As opposed to religious North Caroliners? Are you telling me that Bay Area culture should look to North Carolina to learn a little more about what diversity and tolerance look like? What's your sense of scale here? What does ideological plurality mean to you? What does North Carolina secularism look like? Does North Carolina have a cultural embrace of secularism? Is the bathroom bill a good thermostat for what issues have play in North Carolina? I would argue that the Bay Area is very fertile ground for diversity. The Bay Area Christians build enclaves of high quality here, bastions of middle-to-high SES wealth, aspirations, and sensibilities. They stand as quality in contrast to the community right outside their legally protected walls. I would say that the Bay Area is a cutting-edge experiment of secularism and plurality that the world is watching.
- kthejoker2 9y ago
  He's saying two wrongs don't make a right. How hard is that to understand?
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- heartbreak 9y ago
  Where did OP say anything about looking to NC as a cultural role model? S/he was making a point that people in SF are intolerant, not that people in NC are tolerant.
  - threatofrain 9y ago
    If you say that someone is short, it goes to say that you have a comparison model, and that something is tall. Measuring SF as intolerant naturally invites a comparative measure, and here we are discussing how inviting SF is to North Carolina Christians. I am discussing vice versa by asking mere questions. It might enrich the discussion to say that it's still illegal for men to have sex with men in North Carolina, it's just unenforceable. North Carolina is also working to say that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional. The Christians I know around the Bay Area are under no such threat. If anything, churches are enclaves of extreme quality in the Bay Area. It goes to show what a fertile ground this is for diversity.
davidreiss 9y ago
Well said. It seems like it's human nature when your side gets the upper hand, you demonize and attack the other. One of my friends is fairly liberal-oriented and she openly says that the "hateful" right doesn't deserve rights or free speech. Her and her friends motto is "tolerance of the intolerant is an oxymoron". For all her talk of love of humans, animals ( she's a vegan ), etc, she has a terrible anger inside her. I don't know how we fight against our ugly impulses other than adhering to our principles of equality, free speech and individual rights. It is a difficult and worrying time we live in because neither side is interested in dialogue and each side accuses the other of be hateful and sequesters themselves in their respective echo chambers which radicalizes them even further.
andromeduck 9y ago
I'm not sure he's factually wrong. It looks like he's referring to the nordic studies which were covered by The Economist and Freakanomics.

DougBTX 9y ago

> "wow, 60% of North Carolina is literally horrible, terrible people." The worst thing here is the suggestion that there was 100% turnout, instead it was closer to 30%, so only about 20% voted for it. The amendment was found unconstitutional a short time afterwards anyway, finding that marriage is a fundamental right for everyone.

votepaunchy 9y ago
Equality is a fundamental right. There is nothing stopping a state from eliminating marriage under the 10th amendment.
fennecfoxen 9y ago
> The worst thing here The worst thing? Suppose there is a referendum in, I don't know, Venezuela or something; that's adequately hypothetical. Imagine they put a referendum banning gay marriage on the ballots in Venezuela, and it passes with similar levels of turnout and support. There's a guy in your office from Venezuela who's reading about it, a little bit troubled by the news, and you say, "wow, I guess 60% of Venezuelans are literally horrible terrible people." Do you think that he is going to be most upset with the precision and accuracy present in the percentage you used, and not, say, the idea that you just casually pass judgement on what might easily be 60% of his family, extended family, friends, former co-workers, schoolmates, acquaintances, and the like? Not with the way you dismiss entirely their value as moral actors, without any further attempts to seek understanding of them as human beings, pre-emptively closing the door on learning about their culture and their values, not even pretending that you've an interest in understanding their lives as flawed, imperfect human beings, implicitly disclaiming all need to sympathize with their troubles? Not with the way that you, hailing from a background of substantial privilege in the San Francisco Bay Area, college-educated, and now happily earning six figures in a software job, feel that it's right and just to look down on these people, some of whom are fighting to live somewhere better than a shack in the woods?
- deebeeoh 9y ago
  Fighting their way out of their shack in the woods while, in their spare time taking a moment to vote against gay marriage? What a misunderstood nobility... People are going to a lot of trouble to defend having lousy values. It doesn't mean that's all you are, that one opinion, but having other aspects to your life doesn't let you off the hook. We all have troubles.
  - heartbreak 9y ago

throwaway2812 9y ago

>from what I hear and understand of the matter, this guy is factually in error, probably sexist, and almost certainly undermining his cause. That's my take too, having read the doc. Reminds me of The_Donald -- sometimes correctly identifies an issue, but misses the point entirely on so many levels and does more harm than good to whatever the author's goal was. >you don't un-people people And that's exactly how the doc started from the get-go. It decried anyone who dared disagree with it as shunning communication. That's really not the case -- people discussed it, and disagreed with it. It reminds me of those religious freedom laws, that guarantee people's freedom to discriminate to protect their own beliefs. The more layers you follow down, the more of a contradiction the laws become.

cannonedhamster 9y ago

you don't un-people people. But without trying to devolve into the actual politics of it, a large portion of Americans (I'd wager it's the majority) believe that it's okay to exclude people for one reason or another. Americans have voted since Pres. GW Bush on protectionist principles, even President Obama was barely for extending rights until he was forced into it by VP Biden. America is in the middle of a massive demographic shift from the Baby Boomers who have ruined the economy, created massive public debt, destroyed worker protections, and shifted the political power from those in the middle to those at the very top. They did this by unpeopling people. This was an intentional thing done by the religious right starting in the late 70s and really gaining steam in the 80s. Their brand of us vs them found a receptive audience in America, because the Baby Boomers are afraid that what they've created will change, and for the moment there's more of them than other voting populations. Of course this is the natural outcome. Look at how many centrist politicians have left. So yes I personally disagree with what this guy said, but in a public sphere he has every right to say it. Inside of Google however they have the right to fire him for any reason, because there are no worker protections for free speech.

threatofrain 9y ago

Of course Bay Area people hate ideological diversity? As opposed to religious North Caroliners? Are you telling me that Bay Area culture should look to North Carolina to learn a little more about what diversity and tolerance look like? What's your sense of scale here? What does ideological plurality mean to you? What does North Carolina secularism look like? Does North Carolina have a cultural embrace of secularism? Is the bathroom bill a good thermostat for what issues have play in North Carolina? I would argue that the Bay Area is very fertile ground for diversity. The Bay Area Christians build enclaves of high quality here, bastions of middle-to-high SES wealth, aspirations, and sensibilities. They stand as quality in contrast to the community right outside their legally protected walls. I would say that the Bay Area is a cutting-edge experiment of secularism and plurality that the world is watching.

kthejoker2 9y ago
He's saying two wrongs don't make a right. How hard is that to understand?
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
heartbreak 9y ago
Where did OP say anything about looking to NC as a cultural role model? S/he was making a point that people in SF are intolerant, not that people in NC are tolerant.
- threatofrain 9y ago
  If you say that someone is short, it goes to say that you have a comparison model, and that something is tall. Measuring SF as intolerant naturally invites a comparative measure, and here we are discussing how inviting SF is to North Carolina Christians. I am discussing vice versa by asking mere questions. It might enrich the discussion to say that it's still illegal for men to have sex with men in North Carolina, it's just unenforceable. North Carolina is also working to say that sodomy laws are not unconstitutional. The Christians I know around the Bay Area are under no such threat. If anything, churches are enclaves of extreme quality in the Bay Area. It goes to show what a fertile ground this is for diversity.

davidreiss 9y ago

Well said. It seems like it's human nature when your side gets the upper hand, you demonize and attack the other. One of my friends is fairly liberal-oriented and she openly says that the "hateful" right doesn't deserve rights or free speech. Her and her friends motto is "tolerance of the intolerant is an oxymoron". For all her talk of love of humans, animals ( she's a vegan ), etc, she has a terrible anger inside her. I don't know how we fight against our ugly impulses other than adhering to our principles of equality, free speech and individual rights. It is a difficult and worrying time we live in because neither side is interested in dialogue and each side accuses the other of be hateful and sequesters themselves in their respective echo chambers which radicalizes them even further.

andromeduck 9y ago

I'm not sure he's factually wrong. It looks like he's referring to the nordic studies which were covered by The Economist and Freakanomics.