18 ms·

It's quite ironic: in their push for equality and inclusion, these liberals have created an environment where one faces exclusion and persecution for simply hav

• PKop 9y ago
  Center-right / right individuals need to start organizing their own groups, companies, meet ups, jobs etc. Vote with our feet, and our skills, and go elsewhere. They want to enforce their religion then they can do it without us. There have to be plenty of people sick of watching what they say, walking on eggshells, and pretending to hold political views opposite of their true beliefs just to avoid the wrath of the regressive left. This is only going to get worse, and I don't see why we all have to sit back and take it any more.
  • toomuchtodo 9y ago
    I'd suggest you consider not closing off far left participants from said endeavors. I'm as left as you come, and I'm still appalled by this behavior. Censorship by any other name is still censorship, and they're not rights if you selectively protect them for "your" causes.
    • PKop 9y ago
      It would be simply out of survival instinct. Sufficiently strong leftist political views seem to correlate very strongly with the desire for people to mandate others fall in line with their views. Or else.... how many examples do moderate/conservative people need to see before they should worry? Or simply.. go elsewhere. Openness, or simply indifference to personal or political beliefs I thought was the DEFAULT position of most people. It is sadly not that way anymore... this and many many other examples have shown us all. Just search twitter for hundreds of tech-industry employees railing against this guy for trying to present a statistical argument against conventional wisdom. They are no doubt celebrating at this moment that he was fired. Anyone on the fence just needs to ask themselves... what would happen if these same people knew what was in your head? If they heard you speak about your own views? Would they have mercy? Of course not. Who's next?
      • deleted 9y ago
        [deleted]
      • mempko 9y ago
        Just like on the right there are authoritarian (fascist) and libertarian (Libertarian) beliefs, the left also has authoritarian (Leninist) and libertarian (Anarchist) beliefs. And of course anywhere inbetween. Have you taken the political compass yet?
  • wavefunction 9y ago
    I'm a far leftist and I don't subscribe to PCism. You can ghettoize yourselves all you want but it will do you no favors. If you truly believe in what you say you do you would live your life despite the travails, not wail and bemoan them.
    • PKop 9y ago
      How'd that work out for the guy who just got fired? Think he has grounds to be wailing? I guess he just needs to go live elsewhere... kinda like I'm saying.
      • wavefunction 9y ago
        He'll be alright I would assume. I have worked for many places in 'the Rest of America' where my leftist views were looked at askance or even caused me problems in employment because they made right-wing or libertarian-leaning individuals personally uncomfortable. Really it's just intellectualism versus a discomfort examining and considering ideas. Even though I have my personal politics, I don't expect many or most to share them and I don't seek to install them over others. But I do agitate my viewpoint in ways I attempt to be persuasive with. Often I fail, but it's not about 'winning' as some would have it but integrating and synthesizing.
  • syshum 9y ago
    Honestly I think this more Authoritarian / Libertarian than Right / Left. I personally am Left, Libertarian Left. I disagree with many of the assertions in the memo, however I do not believe he should have been fired. Most of the drum beating from SJW's and Diversity Police are from an Authoritarian World view, where tolerance of views they disagree with is not allowed, can not be openly discussed, and should be suppressed by any means necessary We need to expand the conversation beyond Left / Right, to include what is means to be Authoritarian, or Libertarian
    • PKop 9y ago
      Fair enough, and I appreciate that point of view. But, and this is important: you don't have any power. People that are tolerant and acceptable are not the vocal minority. And those in power either agree with the SJW vocal minority, or they are afraid to oppose them. So what I said above still stands unless their is some concerted effort to change these types of policies and expectations that result in what happened in this scenario. Now, most people wont write a company wide memo outlining their "controversial" views because they have too strong of a self-preservation instinct. What I'm pointing out is... are people going to get sick of holding back, keeping their thoughts to themselves, lying so as to avoid judgement. I bet there's a massive amount of readers just on this site that completely disagree with the outcome in this instance. But they are irrelevant. Because nobody will do anything about it, and the next person to speak up will get fired also. So... nice tolerant open-minded liberals have no power in the face of motivated passionate regressive SJW liberals.
      • syshum 9y ago
        I understand all of that, but you put it in the context of Center/Right persons forming groups and finding employment with Center/Right Organizations I do not see where that solves the discourse problem, all you end up with is a bunch of Authoritiarna Right companies in a Right Echo Chamber and a bunch of Authoritarian Left companies in a left Echo Chamber The solution is to get back to promoting true free expression and the idea that "I disagree with what you have to say, but respect you for saying it" Free Speech is under massive assault, but not from government but from societal sanction which is just as bad and just as dangerous Societal sanction has a habit of becoming Government Censorship in short order
  • nannePOPI 9y ago
    there is no place in the world where you can do this. All countries force you to hire "diversity" at a certain point.
  • deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  • chrissnell 9y ago
    This makes me a little sad. I love my job and wouldn't leave. In general, I've been very happy working for SFBA companies for the last five years. What I don't like is the greater political culture of our industry and a feeling that I will be targeted if I somehow--even casually or unintentionally--identify/signal as conservative around my peers. We now live in a world where conservative views are equated with violence--see responses to my top-level post. This is one small moral and logical step away from advocating violence against conservatives. It's quite scary and makes for an uninclusive environment for many of us.
• thesmallestcat 9y ago
  I hear what you're saying, but why would you want a GOP sticker on your laptop? Neither party is exactly the champion of the common man.
  • afterburner 9y ago
    Well, the health care issue seems to say otherwise.
• jetpks 9y ago
  > an environment where one faces exclusion and persecution for simply having political beliefs that align with a large portion of their fellow U.S. citizens. Can you elaborate on the persecution and exclusion you personally experienced from being an American conservative?
  • collyw 9y ago
    My guess is that you wouldn't be able to discuss voting for Trump around some people.
• halostatue 9y ago
  Tolerance is not a moral precept. As a liberal, I tolerate differences in opinion, but I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence. Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them. Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. If you say no, you are sanctioning violence against them. These are basic human rights and the party you have chosen to support thinks that they are subject to debate. You have chosen to support virulent bigots and misogynists…but don’t want to be called one yourself? Methinks you protest a little too much.
  • m52go 9y ago
    > I do not falsely equate attempts to deny people fair civil rights (as the modern GOP does routinely, in terms of race, gender, gender identity, and so many other ways) as “opinion” so much as institutionalized violence The issue is that the left equates denying preferential treatment as 'denying people civil rights'. That makes it close to impossible for liberal-minded and conservative-minded folks to debate many topics. > Whether the transgender/nonbinary people I know have the right to exist or not is not subject to debate. Right to exist? Is someone saying they should all be rounded up and persecuted? > Whether women have the right to participate fully in the economy without facing harassment or discrimination just because they are women is not subject to debate. Another instance of the first point. Who's saying they shouldn't? Again, the other side wants the same thing--they simply disagree with means to achieve it. But you happen think those means are 'sanctioning violence' against them. And...'sanctioning violence' against women? What does that even mean? Who is doing this? The left always tends to fall back on this argument of 'basic human rights' as if the sky is falling because the right wants to take them all away & punish anyone who isn't a straight white male. It's just a ludicrous mindset that, again, makes it almost impossible to have a rational debate. The nonsensical language in your comment makes that clear.
    • cookiecaper 9y ago
• fnovd 9y ago
  These people are not liberals; they are leftists. I consider myself a liberal and find myself having more in common with centrist Republicans than I do with some members of my own party.
  • Spivak 9y ago
    Just abandon the labels. You'll get nowhere trying to say, "those people are X not Y, Y is much better." No since in being tribal with a group of people who are so diverse they will always fail to meet you expectations. Person over party.
    • fnovd 9y ago
      It's not "just a label," it's a political viewpoint. Liberal/conservative aren't just funny sounding words we made up to describe different "teams." They actually have meaning behind them and describe a general set of held principles. It's perfectly normal to want a different word for a different set of beliefs. I also didn't make any value judgments. I didn't say that my views were "much better," I just said that I don't identify with leftist political views.
      • adrienne 9y ago
        That's because liberalism isn't a leftist position, it's a centrist one. You are closer to the Republicans than to actual leftists.
  • mintplant 9y ago
    > These people are not liberals; they are leftists So Google Corporate HR has gone socialist, then? Or perhaps they've adopted anarcho-syndicalism? I eagerly await the next Google Doodle featuring Rosa Luxemburg and the Spartacist uprising.
• mc32 9y ago
  Medium term what will happen is regular people will get sick of virtue signaling and fake concern and feelings of entitlement because people will realize the whole thing is being gamed (and "weaponized" to some degree). And there will be an overcorrection --kind of like what happened in the past election. They should have taken the mature approach and dealt with it more precisely --even if that would have upset a number of people who simply want to see revenge or feel wronged by an opinion.
  • tenaciousDaniel 9y ago
    I've been obsessively watching the rise of the social justice movement over the past 4 years, ever since Donglegate, and I keep wondering when that correction will come. But it only seems to rise. You would have good reason to believe that we're witnessing a torrentous societal change taking place, rather than a passing fad. After the last election, though, I'm done with making predictions :)
    • mc32 9y ago
      I think Julian Assange might be onto something here: https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/894203366074707968 https://twitter.com/JulianAssange/status/894203366074707968 He goes on about how things turned out in Malaysia (from more or less unified country to one divided along racial lines due to overblown identity politics). He concludes that one way to combat that is to remove the first-past-the-goalpost-wins political system in the US. Although in his example LKY combats it via authoritarianism. I don't think we want to go down that route.
    • maxerickson 9y ago
      The "social justice" movement dates back, uh, centuries. Maybe you have heard of Jesus? Even if you want to separate out a modern social justice movement, it certainly dates back decades. It's fun to consider it in terms of the foundation of the United States and documents like the Declaration of Independence. The wealthy landholders that declared themselves to be free articulated things so clearly that a bunch of other people decided that they wanted in on that shit.
• pfarnsworth 9y ago
  The best way to get revenge on someone is by putting a Trump bumper sticker on her car. Watch how easily anti-Trump people think it's moral to scratch or attack someone's car because of her personal beliefs.
  • ltrcola 9y ago
    You don't think Trump supporters wouldn't scratch up a Hillary sticker or religious people wouldn't scratch up an atheist fish on a car?
    • Banthum 9y ago
      No, they really wouldn't, not nearly with the same frequency. Trump inspires a special "rules no longer apply" insanity in far-leftists. They enjoy feeling like the normal rules of conduct don't apply, so they lean into it.
      • ltrcola 9y ago
        I call BS on that. There are nasty people with no respect for personal property on every political spectrum. It's honestly to the point where wouldn't put any political bumper sticker on my car at all, ever. My personal experience with "far-leftists" as you would call them have been large peaceful protests.
    • axaxs 9y ago
      Not at all. I don't know what's become of this country this election cycle, but the left have become the violent ones.
      • rorykoehler 9y ago
        The violence is institutional and coming straight from the white house.
      • loeg 9y ago
        Citation needed when you make that kind of very broad claim about a population.
• AnOscelot 9y ago
  The modern GOP has embraced some very misogynistic politicans and policies. And they pushed Trump into the White House. If you don't want to be labeled a misogynist, don't support a misogynistic party. It's really that easy. Or have the courage of your convictions and try not to freak out when you live in a place where the majority do not share your views. I say this as a very lefty person in a very red state. I don't hide my views even though I know my neighbors and coworkers may be disapproving.
  • alexanderstears 9y ago
    For what it's worth, there's probably a lower personal cost for a leftist to be sincere in a conservative environment than it is for a conservative to be sincere in a liberal environment. http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-media-habits/ http://www.journalism.org/2014/10/21/political-polarization-... Liberals are more likely to defriend someone over politics. Extrapolate that as you will.
    • seanmcdirmid 9y ago
      Conservatives are just as likely to de-friend, who doesn't want to live in their own bubble? More to the point, the conservative subreddit on reddit is indistinguishable from the Pyongyang subreddit in its quick-to ban if not ideologically on-point policy.
• foobarbazetc 9y ago
  Dude... no one thinks this guy is brave. Nor are human rights open for debate. This sort of "reframing" doesn't really work as well as you think it does.
  • qu4z-2 9y ago
    > no one thinks this guy is brave. I do. Well, brave or stupid. And I'm far from a GOP voter. Which human rights specifically do you believe he was attempting to debate? EDIT: Actually, probably both brave and stupid.
• foxylad 9y ago
  Can I re-characterise your discomfort as being because the GOP has been subverted by people with fairly extreme racist/sexist views? I really doubt it has anything to do with liberals creating environments. From my admittedly distant viewpoint (I'm not from your country), the GOP has changed substantially in recent years. It used to be a responsible political party that respected democracy. Then it seemed to start believing the ends justify the means - redrawing voting districts, filibustering, etc. And at the same time accepting support from seriously racist and misogynist groups. For example, the Obama birth certificate thing was simply a racist joke when it started. The GOP rank and file should have refused any association with those who suggested it, but because it served their purposes they embraced both the meme and the people promulgating it. The result of that (and more - Clinton trafficking children in a pizza parlour? I'm surprised they didn't add aliens just for good measure...) is that the GOP is now seen as a party that entertains such nutters. I sympathise that your political system provides just two big boats, so you are forced to row with people you aren't comfortable with. In New Zealand we have proportional representation which lets the more... colourful... people have their own boats, which is very healthy because they quickly realise how few people want to join them, and that their views are unpopular.
  • javagram 9y ago
    > From my admittedly distant viewpoint (I'm not from your country), the GOP has changed substantially in recent years. It used to be a responsible political party that respected democracy. Then it seemed to start believing the ends justify the means - redrawing voting districts, filibustering, etc. There's something missing in your perspective which is that redrawing voting districts, filibustering, etc are political strategies that have been used by every party in the USA since the late 1700s. Gerrymandering was named after one of the signers of the constitution. The Democratic Party had a solid control of congress for several decades in the 1900s due to gerrymandering (voting districts redrawing). The filibuster was used by democrats as well and as the senate passed back and forth between GOP and Democratic control, each side used it more than the last time. Now, a lot of noise has been made in recent years in the media about these tactics because the GOP happened to be in a position in 2000 and 2010 to gerrymander the districts themselves, but it's nothing new. I guess regarding the birth certificate thing, credulity for conspiracies is nothing new among the GOP party base. In the 1990s they were convinced that Bill Clinton had dozens of people murdered to cover up his crimes ("Clinton body count").
• deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
• xenadu02 9y ago
  If you want to argue about tax policy, military policy, or any number of other things where conservatives and liberals have legitimate policy disagreements then by all means do so. I'm sure Google is a perfectly safe space for such arguments. You seem to be arguing that we need to create a safe space for conservatives to espouse debunked bio-truth garbage that women or blacks are less suited to being engineers or are somehow inferior. Or that conservatives should have "safe fact-free zone" where they can spout nonsense without having anyone call them on it. I'm not sure why so many people are willing to take this Google engineer's statements at face value. Actually I think I know why: because it confirms pre-existing beliefs. But even an hour on Google will provide ample evidence that his premises are simply not true. I'm not taking about J. Random Engineer's ramblings on some blog but actual research undertaken by actual sociologists performing experiments and crunching reams and reams of data. Let me repeat that for everyone: His entire argument is based in a long-debunked flawed premise. It isn't true and no amount of philosophizing about it will make it true. Your feelings don't make it true. The facts are clear. Counter-examples about: look at CS enrollment rates in India for example. The modern western world, especially the United States, socializes women out of computer science and software engineering. It has nothing to do with biological aptitude. Everyone I know of is desperately trying to find qualified candidates to hire. The idea that more-qualified white men are being excluded to fill a "diversity" quota is laughable. Diversity is about expanding the candidate pipeline and providing some support to those people once hired. Maybe if the industry goes through a huge crunch and programmers are being laid-off left and right then there would be an argument there? The other thing I'll say is you have to be extremely dense not to either a) understand that you're making extraordinary claims or b) touching a potentially controversial topic that could result in massive bad PR if nothing else. Under those circumstances a competent engineer should take some time to gather evidence and make proper citations to peer-reviewed research. It would also be greatly beneficial to present multiple sides to the argument and make fewer sweeping claims. If you're going to say something that could easily be interpreted as "my coworkers are less-qualified diversity hires" then approach the topic with some humility, especially if you don't have a PhD in sociology. This would be the equivalent of penning a memo claiming people who believe in God are suffering delusions and they are lowering the bar because they go to church on Sunday or for special events when they could be working. Mention that they're obviously gullible and represent a security risk to other employees. Go ahead - write that memo and route it around a large employer. See if you're still employed a week later (hint: you won't be).