12 ms·

Silicon Valley Struggles to Add Conservatives to Its Ranks

32 points by rayuela 9y ago

dmitrygr 9y ago
"unwelcome" would be a significant improvement. Try "ostracized and worried about getting fired for not visibly toeing the party line"
- caiob 9y ago
  Sorry, but I beg to differ. I can say with confidence that I would get fired if I openly exposed my political views at my job, whereas my Liberal counterparts freely discourse their ideas and opinions on a daily-basis without any consequence. The Tech industry is wildly leftist, with zero tolerance for the conservative ideology.
  - jbooth 9y ago
    Do most of your coworkers self-apply the term 'leftist'? If not, why would you call them that? Seems impolite. Especially if they're actually a mix of neoliberal and libertarian technocrats. Maybe it's just zero tolerance for inaccurate name calling.
  - chasing 9y ago
    What kind of heinous political views do you hold that you'd get fired for discussing them?
    - jdfreefly 9y ago
      * Healthcare isn't a right. It's the product of someone's hardwork and as such, you have no "right" to it. * Making college education free for US citizens is a terrible idea. * We've taken the idea of "sanctuary cities" way too far. * Gun control is a bad idea These are a few conservative ideas that I think plenty of people would be afraid to express in a workplace that is disproportionately filled with ardent "liberals".
      - mithr 9y ago
        Sure, but discussing any of those wouldn't get you fired out of any reasonable job -- at most it might make your coworkers think less of you, but I don't really see why holding an opinion _should_ protect you from the social (i.e. not job security) consequences of holding it. However, saying that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far "because immigrants are rapists", as a random example, _should_ perhaps get you fired, especially since it's likely that some of your colleagues are in fact immigrants and saying something like that is a direct insult to them. I think the state of politics in the US today is such that many (though certainly not all, as you've outlined) "conservative" ideas have strong ties to xenophobia and racism, whereas "liberal" ideas can be more freely discussed because they are about inclusion, rather than exclusion. And that's the way it _should_ be. Saying "I support giving more rights to group X" is not in general harmful to other groups, and is not the moral equivalent of saying "I support taking away rights from group X", which is actively harmful to group X.
        RestlessMind 9y ago
        > However, saying that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far "because immigrants are rapists", as a random example, Nice strawman there! I think that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far, that the illegal immigration should be curbed and that democrats are just exploiting this for their political gains. I am also a non-white immigrant myself. But discussing my views openly would definitely get me in a few discussions with HR, if not outright fired.
        mithr 9y ago
        Not intended as a straw man, but rather as an illustration that the same general opinion ("the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far") should be a perfectly fine (even if unpopular) thing to discuss in the workplace if your opinion and reasoning behind it are not derogatory, but not at all fine to discuss if they are.
        RestlessMind 9y ago
    - caiob 9y ago
      For instance, I view gender as a binary.
      - mithr 9y ago
        That's because this view is actively harmful to your colleague who does not consider their gender to be binary. This isn't the equivalent of a colleague telling you they believe gender is non-binary, it's equivalent to someone telling you "I know you think you're a man, but my opinion is that in fact you are not a man". Adding "that's just my 2 cents though, and I believe in your right to (wrongly) believe you're a man!" doesn't help -- you've still just told someone that you don't respect them or how they think of themselves, and that your political stance is that they shouldn't have the right to make that decision.
        zerostar07 9y ago
        why u think a view (when not acted upon) is "actively harmful"?
        mithr 9y ago
        What do you mean by "when not acted upon"? No one is arguing that the OP shouldn't be allowed to _hold_ this opinion, privately and in his own head. I do argue that the _act_ of sharing the opinion with a colleague at work is harmful, since by doing that the OP is revealing that he does not respect the identity of his colleagues, and further strongly implies the OP will do whatever is in his power (by way of voting for political candidates, for example) to limit the ability of his colleagues to have rights based on these identities. I don't think you have to physically attack someone to be actively harmful to them and their existence.
        zerostar07 9y ago
        you don't think that is overly restrictive?
      - chasing 9y ago
    - sparrish 9y ago
      That God created this universe. That marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. That the right to own and carry a gun is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. These and other fundamental Christian world views are very 'unwelcome' in IT on both coasts of the US.
      - irhd 9y ago
        > That God created this universe As an atheist I do think there is too many people in tech who have a tendency to shit on religion, without considering anyone else around. I agree, there is no god. Lets not go around calling anyone who believes in it idiots, because no good comes of that. But I also won't put up with some religious lecture. You're the jerk in that situation. > That marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable.
        sparrish 9y ago
        > You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable. Somehow that doesn't apply to liberals when conservatives talk about the right to own and carry a gun. I find the hypocrisy sickening.
        chasing 9y ago
        Remember that time that guy walked into a church and killed a bunch of people with a semi-automatic gay marriage? Neither do I.
        mithr 9y ago
        Do you find your rights to be impeded when you aren't allowed to own or carry a bomb, either? don't pretend everything is equivalent. The right of two people to have rights and protections under state/federal law regardless of their genders is in no way similar to the right of someone to own a weapon.
        SllX 9y ago
        > You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but consider it from the other side. There's two parts to marriage for a lot of people, and this gets overlooked. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a property arrangement, more or less. You get married, you merge assets, and you use your merged assets to fund your collective livelihoods and hopefully have some children. In the past, you could even take it as a given that across the middle class you would have a mother there to tend to the household economy (gardening, sewing, shopping, etc.) and tend to the children. The father would work a fairly predictable 9-5 job and basically, bring home the bacon. Sure this wasn't the case for everyone, but it was true enough across a vast swathe of the population for long enough that it came to shape the default expectations of our society. Probably it was really only the case for a few generations at most. Familial, social, and even religious ties held people together in a productive fashion. Then things changed. Never mind why, the real reason why whatever it is doesn't even matter for this discussion, but things changed. Society isn't as stable as it seems, the middle class is shrinking, both parents tend to work now, etc. So the portion of society that could take for granted that their familial, social and religious ties would hold the very fabric of society, or at least their own county together worried that would no longer be the case. Everyone wants what is best for their kids and country, right? So let's come back around to the second part of marriage: religious ceremony. Atheists like you and I can freely dismiss that part of marriage, but for a long time, at least in Christian nations as I won't comment on other beliefs, the default view was that when you got married, you were bound in the eyes of God. There are a lot of people that still take that seriously, and it is easy to miss because atheists don't have to care about religious ceremony. Marriage is almost an artifact of the past other than the fact that a lot of our laws concerning property and tax codes are written with the assumption of marriage. Maybe we continue to get married simply because we as people are still so collectively locked in our ways that we still strive to make some kind of ceremony out of it. Is it irrational that people still hold to that view so seriously though? I wouldn't argue, I mean, I don't have a religion for several reasons but those are besides the point. I think it's irrational, yet so many of the people that make up our society, really the foundation of our nation, hold to their beliefs so strongly, sincerely believe them that simply arguing that it is irrational is entirely besides the point. They have faith, traditions, a moral code, and beliefs that marriage is between One Man and One Woman and while the benefits and tax advantages bestowed upon husband and wife are nice, it is the civil portion, the property arrangement that is almost besides the point. They'll take it rather than leave it, but it isn't the foundation of their marriage. Rewind a few years ago, and marriage wasn't a civil right that two gender conforming homosexual people had with each other. It was a right granted to them by either statute, constitutional amendment or in the end, a court order from on high from SCOTUS itself. A civil institution. A civil, material institution treading upon matters spiritual. You don't have to agree, I don't have to agree, but the world I want to live in is one where people can express their viewpoints regardless of whether I agree or you agree or the masses agree. If social liberalism means anything anymore, I would want it to mean that. It is still important to understand that is only a civil rights issue for one side of this debate.
  - mpweiher 9y ago
    > Sorry, but I beg to differ. Why? Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you and the person you replied to seem in violent agreement.
  - zwerdlds 9y ago
    If you were fired for your political views in CA, that would be wrongful termination.
    - poke111 9y ago
      Kind of like Brendan Eich?
      - zwerdlds 9y ago
        Eich resigned, he wasn't terminated.
        poke111 9y ago
        It's true that Eich resigned, under extreme pressure. Is that a good thing? It just underscores my point - that even with legal protections, there still needs to be a cultural shift towards acceptance (or at least tolerance) of people with heterodox views.
        zwerdlds 9y ago
        I think you're just moving the goalposts here.
        BrendanEich 9y ago
        Google "constructive termination".
        zwerdlds 9y ago
        Why didn't you file suit?
        BrendanEich 9y ago
        Why didn't you search for the phrase I gave and read up? Suits get settled exactly that way, and also get headed off that way before filing. I'm writing in general of course. I am not commenting on my particular situation, note well. Suits also often get settled with various strictures on talking about the details. HTH.
  - s17n 9y ago
    If you are talking about your views on tax policy, healthcare, etc, all I can say is that I've never worked anywhere that somebody would be fired or ostracized or anything for their position. If you are talking about race or gender than yeah, the "conservative" position is terrible and you would rightly face consequences for your awful beliefs. If you're talking about telling your coworkers that you voted for Trump, well, I don't think that's something that ought to be taboo but he did explicitly embrace the terrible beliefs I mentioned so I think that explicitly renouncing them wouldn't be a bad idea.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - RestlessMind 9y ago
      If conservatives talk about illegal immigration, they would get ostracized and harassed at tech companies even if their position is not "terrible". Its mainly because liberals/democrats/leftists are very vocal about that issue and drown out sensible discussions which do not toe their ideology.
      - libertyEQ 9y ago
        As a liberal Republican, I completely disagree with your conflation of those terms. I would suggest picking up a dictionary or reading about Adam Smith, the original liberal.
      - s17n 9y ago
        Yeah, there's definitely a spectrum there. "We should change the immigration process to favor skilled workers" - you're fine. "We should deport anybody who immigrated illegally" - you're in the danger zone. "We need a ban on immigration from Muslim countries" - you are horrible and you deserve whatever consequences you suffer. "Build the wall" - you're an idiot.
  - cortesoft 9y ago
    Which views from 'conservative ideology' would get your fired? I am sure you won't be fired for arguing for fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, or for strong national defense. Gun rights might get you some pushback, but I doubt you would be fired for it. I know so many people in the tech industry who are very pro gun-rights. Anti-abortion views might get you some pushback, but you probably won't be fired unless you are harassing coworkers about their abortions. It gets a bit tricky when you get into some other traditional conservative views. The problem is that there are positions shared by conservatives and racists, and while you can certainly hold some of the views without being actually racist, it is tricky. Anti-immigration stances might get you into trouble if you express them in terms that appear racist. If you say you don't want muslim or mexican immigrants, you are going to find yourself in trouble. If you are against gay rights, you are going to get into trouble. You can say it is unfair, but if your political views involve wanting to deny rights to your coworkers, you are going to have a problem. Bottom line, there are certain political views that are just wrong. If you are against rights for some of your coworkers or if you have racist beliefs, you can't expect to not have consequences.
  - zerostar07 9y ago
    Why do you feel that you need to discuss politics at work? Based on the responses your comment got , it would be a disaster. "think as you like but behave like others"
k__ 9y ago
Isn't this a good thing? I mean if there aren't any conservatives now, it means it got big without them. Why should it add such people? This would only lead to its demise.
- ludicast 9y ago
  You could extend that logic to any minority then.
  - aphextron 9y ago
    I'm not sure I would describe a political party with complete control of all 3 branches of US government as a "minority".
    - k__ 9y ago
      This. Also it's kinda interesting that a place that doesn't favor conservatives is much more successful than the rest of the world.
      - creaghpatr 9y ago
        Would you make that comment about women and POC? Because they are underrepresented in Silicon Valley as well.
        k__ 9y ago
        I don't know if I'm moving the goal post here, but as far as I know POC and women aren't per definition known for doing the opposite of what made SV successful (-> not conserving old stuff, but trying new and innovative things)
        leakybit 9y ago
        What evidence do you have to say that liberal => SV successful and not white liberal men => SV successful
Apreche 9y ago
Good
aphextron 9y ago
This is entirely the fault of conservatives. There is no such thing as legitimate conservative thought in the US any longer. The entire movement has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians and racist rich people. Aligning yourself with such an ideology rightfully has a serious social cost now. As a brown person, do you know what my first thoughts of someone who describes themselves as "conservative" are? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. You can't blame people for not wanting to be made uncomfortable in that way.
- jitl 9y ago
  I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. It’s racism that’s not.
  - aphextron 9y ago
    >I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. Precisely. We need conservatism. We need that part of our conscience which says "well, hold on a minute", or "hey we can't afford that" in order to function properly as a democracy. It's loss is a tragedy, and the corruption of those ideals over the past 30 years into what it has become is breaking our country.
    - irhd 9y ago
      > We need conservatism I disagree at this point honestly. course all I've ever seen of american conservatism is the current republican party.
      - pwinnski 9y ago
        This seems like an instance of SV's bias toward the young biting SV in the collective butt. People who remember the 70s and 80s remember a different political environment.
anthmcc 9y ago
I'm working on a memo about how conservatives are just less interested in tech. /s Is this a tech problem or a Californian city problem?
- zwerdlds 9y ago
  Plenty of conservatives in the central valley. Maybe it's a Bay Area phenomenon.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    I haven't observed it so it's probably a Bay Area/California thing. I'm in the south east and while it's slightly more liberal than the norm for the area most the people are still very capitalist, moderate right wing, and usually traditional social norms. So yeah if you live in a super liberal place people are going to have a liberal bias. I was born and raised in the south, it has a conservative bias, and I don't pretend that it's magically going to go away. I think if you're aware that your political positions are a far deviation from the norm for your area it's probably wise to not be loud about it. Especially if your position is somewhere along the lines of "My coworker shouldn't be here for reasons that are a protected class". They'll fire you just to CYA, independent of whether they agree with you or not.
dublinben 9y ago
Is "ideological diversity" really a kind of diversity that companies should care about? Party membership isn't a protected class, and Republicans are hardly a persecuted minority during a time when they control all 3 branches of government. Should we be making efforts to be more inclusive of other underrepresented ideologies like creationism, flat-earthism, or geocentrism?
- creaghpatr 9y ago
  >Party membership isn't a protected class In California it is: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- zwerdlds 9y ago
  Political party is, in fact, a protected class in CA.
- revmoo 9y ago
  Thinking the Earth is flat and believing in small government are not really the sort of thing I'd conflate...
kyleblarson 9y ago
Tim Ferris summed it up well: Silicon Valley also has an insidious infection that is spreading -- a peculiar form of McCarthyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) masquerading as liberal open-mindedness. I'm as socially liberal as you get, and I find it nauseating how many topics or dissenting opinions are simply out-of-bounds in Silicon Valley. These days, people with real jobs (unlike me) are risking their careers to even challenge collective delusions in SF. Isn't this supposed to be where people change the world by challenging the consensus reality? By seeing the hidden realities behind the facades? That's the whole reason I traveled west and started over in the Bay Area. Now, more and more, I feel like it's a Russian nesting doll of facades -- Washington DC with fewer neck ties, where people openly lie to one another out of fear of losing their jobs or being publicly crucified. It's weird, unsettling, and, frankly, really dangerous. There's way too much power here for politeness to be sustainable. If no one feels they can say "Hey, I know it makes everyone uncomfortable, but I think there's a leak in the fuel rods in this nuclear submarine..." we're headed for big trouble
- frenchie4111 9y ago
  What is the source of this? I am interested in what topics/opinions he believes are out-of-bounds.
  - RestlessMind 9y ago
    Here are a few examples of the topics I don't want to discuss at work, because my workplace is full of zealots who would accuse me of bigotry and I don't want to get entangled in HR discussions: - illegal immigration - importance of "pipeline" on workplace diversity - effectiveness of company policies to foster diversity A side effect is that open conversations are now almost silenced in a company which once prided on open culture. People now speak out only in smaller cliques of their friends, and this is having a massively negative impact on company culture.
    - jbob2000 9y ago
      Illegal immigration is a distracting election talking point. It affects us much less than it is purported to. And I’ve thought that news articles about company diversity are hit jobs to move a stock price. In any case, these topics have high emotional stakes, but are completely subjective. Unlike talking about your favorite movies, which is also a subjective topic, but with much less emotional investment. I have to ask; why do you want to talk to your coworkers about this stuff? What are you going to get out of it? Are you trying to feel justified about an opinion you hold? I just have no idea why anyone would want to talk about this with people they have to get along with everyday.
carlosdp 9y ago
Oh please, there's a difference between "conservative" and "batshit crazy". If you get up and say you don't think medicine can/should be socialized in America, I don't think you're going to get ostracized at most companies, that's a serious debate and there are many sides. If you say gays shouldn't marry or that CNN is fake news media, yea you're going to get ostracized. Not because you're conservative, but because you're an idiot and are making your coworkers super uncomfortable. The same would happen if you went around saying "people who wear red jackets are inferior" when one of your team members wears their favorite red jacket to work everyday.
- ganoushoreilly 9y ago
  I disagree. I joined a conversation a few years back about gun ownership. I said I support people's rights to own them and in fact I owned one too. The result was an argument about how now because It was known that I'm ok with gun ownership, one of my counterparts now felt threatened at work and requested that i'd be moved. So while I agree there is a difference between batshit crazy and conservative, there's also a difference between batshit crazy and liberal of which there are many on both sides.
  - zwerdlds 9y ago
    It's just the free market adjusting!
  - jbob2000 9y ago
    Our minds our faliable, it’s definitely a risk owning a gun - to yourself, coworkers, and family. Sure, you’re fine today, but get overworked for a few months or laid off, a bit of mania sets in, and then all of a sudden you’re on the evening news. The Las Vegas shooter had just won a huge jackpot before he committed his crime, people can snap in the weirdest of ways. Given that workplace violence is a thing that happens, and the high emotions business sometimes gets us in, you definitely made a mistake telling coworkers you own a gun.
    - ganoushoreilly 9y ago
matt4077 9y ago
Not being in the US, I have a variety of friends including communists, feminists, social democrats, libertarians, free-market opportunists, and conservative catholics. But under no circumstances would I legitimise what currently passes as a "conservative" in the US by associating with them. Just take the current Trump vs all of Britain disagreement as an example: I think Brexit is among the worst ideas, ever. Yet I would never turn down the opportunity for a tea with Theresa May, because we share a fundamental understanding that it's probably a bad idea to endorse xenophobic hate groups by retweeting their fake propaganda.
- RickJWag 9y ago
  I'd like to point out that Trump was a Democrat for nearly his entire life, just up until the point when he hijacked the Republican party (against great efforts from the Bush family, Mitt Romney, etc.) Confusing Donald Trump with a conservative is a mistake. As for Evangelical conservatives, I'd suggest you have a few conversations with some and then form an opinion. So long as you are respectful and make reasonable assertions, I am sure you'll come away with a different point of view.
elandybarr 9y ago
I have a network of conservative tech friends in Seattle and coordinate with various pro-Trump tech individuals around the country. I think from the comments on here (many done under unattributable usernames) it is clear to see why most stay far under the radar. There is a very real fear of negative career consequences in the tech industry for having views that are mainstream in broad swathes of the country that so enables the tech industry's success. While some blowback may be manageable for someone with demonstrable skills and few longterm commitments, it has a chilling effect for those with families and mortgages. And for those who think that none of their peers voted for the US president, I can tell you that you are likely mistaken. For those that think that conservatives can't innovate or fit into the tech industry, I counter that there are very successful people all over the industry, but given that there is little upside and high risk to mentioning it publicly, it is understandable that one would have a different perception.
- jitix 9y ago
  Valid point but the main issue is that the ranks of conservatives are filled with discriminatory, bigoted and racist people. Its hard to differentiate a political conservative from a KKK member/Neo Nazi/Anti-LGBT person. And I certainly don't want to work with any of these characters nor will I hire them because if you're a KKK member, Neo Nazi, etc. it shows that you cannot think objectively and rationally. And in that case no matter how good you're with algorithms you'll eventually cause damage to the technology and/or the team.
neuralFatigue 9y ago
I don't disagree with there being a liberal bias in SV companies, I think that's pretty damn obvious. I'm curious though why such observations are made for SV only, why don't publicly social conservative organizations e.g Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-a etc get asked similar questions? It would be safe to assume that things like same sex marriage, contraception would be considered out of bounds there. Is it just because of the size/reach of the tech industry ?
- arprocter 9y ago
  I guess the argument would be that you can buy craft supplies/chicken sandwiches from alternate sellers
  - neuralFatigue 9y ago
    Well no one is forced used SV services, people are free not to use them. Also my point was not from a consumer standpoint but more from an employee/media standpoint.
incogitomode 9y ago
From the article: "In interviews, many tech employees and executives said they believed conservative views on issues like tax policy and regulation are welcome in Silicon Valley. But conservative views on social issues like gay marriage, civil rights and immigration meet more resistance ..." While many of those issues seem like fair game in a (presumed) secular business environment, I don't see how an expressed conservative viewpoint that actively opposes civil or equal rights can be tolerated in a workplace. It is a necessary basis for any sort of collegiality and cooperation. At the same time, I can imagine people freely saying disparaging things about conservatives (it's hard for me to resist sometimes) that would make for a hostile environment. I'd hope large SV companies could occasionally remind employees of that fact.
- lolwutf 9y ago
  The problem, like most in life, is not in the expression of the conservative viewpoints but in the definition and application of 'actively opposing civil or equal rights'. Some people feel The Wall 'actively opposes civil or equal rights'. Or transgenders in the military. Or etc, etc etc... Many conservatives feel that conservative viewpoints on hot topic issues are rational decisions. They're often not out to 'actively oppose civil or equal rights'.
erics32 9y ago
This reminds me of when the James Damore news first broke out and multiple Google hiring managers were openly bragging on G+ about maintaining blacklists of everyone who didn't denounce the diversity memo.
kapauldo 9y ago
I don't see why this is a struggle

32 points by rayuela 9y ago

"unwelcome" would be a significant improvement. Try "ostracized and worried about getting fired for not visibly toeing the party line"

caiob 9y ago
Sorry, but I beg to differ. I can say with confidence that I would get fired if I openly exposed my political views at my job, whereas my Liberal counterparts freely discourse their ideas and opinions on a daily-basis without any consequence. The Tech industry is wildly leftist, with zero tolerance for the conservative ideology.
- jbooth 9y ago
  Do most of your coworkers self-apply the term 'leftist'? If not, why would you call them that? Seems impolite. Especially if they're actually a mix of neoliberal and libertarian technocrats. Maybe it's just zero tolerance for inaccurate name calling.
- chasing 9y ago
  What kind of heinous political views do you hold that you'd get fired for discussing them?
  - jdfreefly 9y ago
    * Healthcare isn't a right. It's the product of someone's hardwork and as such, you have no "right" to it. * Making college education free for US citizens is a terrible idea. * We've taken the idea of "sanctuary cities" way too far. * Gun control is a bad idea These are a few conservative ideas that I think plenty of people would be afraid to express in a workplace that is disproportionately filled with ardent "liberals".
    - mithr 9y ago
      Sure, but discussing any of those wouldn't get you fired out of any reasonable job -- at most it might make your coworkers think less of you, but I don't really see why holding an opinion _should_ protect you from the social (i.e. not job security) consequences of holding it. However, saying that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far "because immigrants are rapists", as a random example, _should_ perhaps get you fired, especially since it's likely that some of your colleagues are in fact immigrants and saying something like that is a direct insult to them. I think the state of politics in the US today is such that many (though certainly not all, as you've outlined) "conservative" ideas have strong ties to xenophobia and racism, whereas "liberal" ideas can be more freely discussed because they are about inclusion, rather than exclusion. And that's the way it _should_ be. Saying "I support giving more rights to group X" is not in general harmful to other groups, and is not the moral equivalent of saying "I support taking away rights from group X", which is actively harmful to group X.
      - RestlessMind 9y ago
        > However, saying that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far "because immigrants are rapists", as a random example, Nice strawman there! I think that the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far, that the illegal immigration should be curbed and that democrats are just exploiting this for their political gains. I am also a non-white immigrant myself. But discussing my views openly would definitely get me in a few discussions with HR, if not outright fired.
        mithr 9y ago
        Not intended as a straw man, but rather as an illustration that the same general opinion ("the idea of sanctuary cities has been taken too far") should be a perfectly fine (even if unpopular) thing to discuss in the workplace if your opinion and reasoning behind it are not derogatory, but not at all fine to discuss if they are.
        RestlessMind 9y ago
  - caiob 9y ago
    For instance, I view gender as a binary.
    - mithr 9y ago
      That's because this view is actively harmful to your colleague who does not consider their gender to be binary. This isn't the equivalent of a colleague telling you they believe gender is non-binary, it's equivalent to someone telling you "I know you think you're a man, but my opinion is that in fact you are not a man". Adding "that's just my 2 cents though, and I believe in your right to (wrongly) believe you're a man!" doesn't help -- you've still just told someone that you don't respect them or how they think of themselves, and that your political stance is that they shouldn't have the right to make that decision.
      - zerostar07 9y ago
        why u think a view (when not acted upon) is "actively harmful"?
        mithr 9y ago
        What do you mean by "when not acted upon"? No one is arguing that the OP shouldn't be allowed to _hold_ this opinion, privately and in his own head. I do argue that the _act_ of sharing the opinion with a colleague at work is harmful, since by doing that the OP is revealing that he does not respect the identity of his colleagues, and further strongly implies the OP will do whatever is in his power (by way of voting for political candidates, for example) to limit the ability of his colleagues to have rights based on these identities. I don't think you have to physically attack someone to be actively harmful to them and their existence.
        zerostar07 9y ago
        you don't think that is overly restrictive?
    - chasing 9y ago
  - sparrish 9y ago
    That God created this universe. That marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. That the right to own and carry a gun is guaranteed by the 2nd amendment. These and other fundamental Christian world views are very 'unwelcome' in IT on both coasts of the US.
    - irhd 9y ago
      > That God created this universe As an atheist I do think there is too many people in tech who have a tendency to shit on religion, without considering anyone else around. I agree, there is no god. Lets not go around calling anyone who believes in it idiots, because no good comes of that. But I also won't put up with some religious lecture. You're the jerk in that situation. > That marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable.
      - sparrish 9y ago
        > You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable. Somehow that doesn't apply to liberals when conservatives talk about the right to own and carry a gun. I find the hypocrisy sickening.
        chasing 9y ago
        Remember that time that guy walked into a church and killed a bunch of people with a semi-automatic gay marriage? Neither do I.
        mithr 9y ago
        Do you find your rights to be impeded when you aren't allowed to own or carry a bomb, either? don't pretend everything is equivalent. The right of two people to have rights and protections under state/federal law regardless of their genders is in no way similar to the right of someone to own a weapon.
      - SllX 9y ago
        > You're expressing beliefs that others should have their rights taken away. That's unacceptable. I don't agree with his viewpoint, but consider it from the other side. There's two parts to marriage for a lot of people, and this gets overlooked. In the eyes of the law, marriage is a property arrangement, more or less. You get married, you merge assets, and you use your merged assets to fund your collective livelihoods and hopefully have some children. In the past, you could even take it as a given that across the middle class you would have a mother there to tend to the household economy (gardening, sewing, shopping, etc.) and tend to the children. The father would work a fairly predictable 9-5 job and basically, bring home the bacon. Sure this wasn't the case for everyone, but it was true enough across a vast swathe of the population for long enough that it came to shape the default expectations of our society. Probably it was really only the case for a few generations at most. Familial, social, and even religious ties held people together in a productive fashion. Then things changed. Never mind why, the real reason why whatever it is doesn't even matter for this discussion, but things changed. Society isn't as stable as it seems, the middle class is shrinking, both parents tend to work now, etc. So the portion of society that could take for granted that their familial, social and religious ties would hold the very fabric of society, or at least their own county together worried that would no longer be the case. Everyone wants what is best for their kids and country, right? So let's come back around to the second part of marriage: religious ceremony. Atheists like you and I can freely dismiss that part of marriage, but for a long time, at least in Christian nations as I won't comment on other beliefs, the default view was that when you got married, you were bound in the eyes of God. There are a lot of people that still take that seriously, and it is easy to miss because atheists don't have to care about religious ceremony. Marriage is almost an artifact of the past other than the fact that a lot of our laws concerning property and tax codes are written with the assumption of marriage. Maybe we continue to get married simply because we as people are still so collectively locked in our ways that we still strive to make some kind of ceremony out of it. Is it irrational that people still hold to that view so seriously though? I wouldn't argue, I mean, I don't have a religion for several reasons but those are besides the point. I think it's irrational, yet so many of the people that make up our society, really the foundation of our nation, hold to their beliefs so strongly, sincerely believe them that simply arguing that it is irrational is entirely besides the point. They have faith, traditions, a moral code, and beliefs that marriage is between One Man and One Woman and while the benefits and tax advantages bestowed upon husband and wife are nice, it is the civil portion, the property arrangement that is almost besides the point. They'll take it rather than leave it, but it isn't the foundation of their marriage. Rewind a few years ago, and marriage wasn't a civil right that two gender conforming homosexual people had with each other. It was a right granted to them by either statute, constitutional amendment or in the end, a court order from on high from SCOTUS itself. A civil institution. A civil, material institution treading upon matters spiritual. You don't have to agree, I don't have to agree, but the world I want to live in is one where people can express their viewpoints regardless of whether I agree or you agree or the masses agree. If social liberalism means anything anymore, I would want it to mean that. It is still important to understand that is only a civil rights issue for one side of this debate.
- mpweiher 9y ago
  > Sorry, but I beg to differ. Why? Maybe I am misunderstanding, but you and the person you replied to seem in violent agreement.
- zwerdlds 9y ago
  If you were fired for your political views in CA, that would be wrongful termination.
  - poke111 9y ago
    Kind of like Brendan Eich?
    - zwerdlds 9y ago
      Eich resigned, he wasn't terminated.
      - poke111 9y ago
        It's true that Eich resigned, under extreme pressure. Is that a good thing? It just underscores my point - that even with legal protections, there still needs to be a cultural shift towards acceptance (or at least tolerance) of people with heterodox views.
        zwerdlds 9y ago
        I think you're just moving the goalposts here.
      - BrendanEich 9y ago
        Google "constructive termination".
        zwerdlds 9y ago
        Why didn't you file suit?
        BrendanEich 9y ago
        Why didn't you search for the phrase I gave and read up? Suits get settled exactly that way, and also get headed off that way before filing. I'm writing in general of course. I am not commenting on my particular situation, note well. Suits also often get settled with various strictures on talking about the details. HTH.
- s17n 9y ago
  If you are talking about your views on tax policy, healthcare, etc, all I can say is that I've never worked anywhere that somebody would be fired or ostracized or anything for their position. If you are talking about race or gender than yeah, the "conservative" position is terrible and you would rightly face consequences for your awful beliefs. If you're talking about telling your coworkers that you voted for Trump, well, I don't think that's something that ought to be taboo but he did explicitly embrace the terrible beliefs I mentioned so I think that explicitly renouncing them wouldn't be a bad idea.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - RestlessMind 9y ago
    If conservatives talk about illegal immigration, they would get ostracized and harassed at tech companies even if their position is not "terrible". Its mainly because liberals/democrats/leftists are very vocal about that issue and drown out sensible discussions which do not toe their ideology.
    - libertyEQ 9y ago
      As a liberal Republican, I completely disagree with your conflation of those terms. I would suggest picking up a dictionary or reading about Adam Smith, the original liberal.
    - s17n 9y ago
      Yeah, there's definitely a spectrum there. "We should change the immigration process to favor skilled workers" - you're fine. "We should deport anybody who immigrated illegally" - you're in the danger zone. "We need a ban on immigration from Muslim countries" - you are horrible and you deserve whatever consequences you suffer. "Build the wall" - you're an idiot.
- cortesoft 9y ago
  Which views from 'conservative ideology' would get your fired? I am sure you won't be fired for arguing for fiscal conservatism, lower taxes, or for strong national defense. Gun rights might get you some pushback, but I doubt you would be fired for it. I know so many people in the tech industry who are very pro gun-rights. Anti-abortion views might get you some pushback, but you probably won't be fired unless you are harassing coworkers about their abortions. It gets a bit tricky when you get into some other traditional conservative views. The problem is that there are positions shared by conservatives and racists, and while you can certainly hold some of the views without being actually racist, it is tricky. Anti-immigration stances might get you into trouble if you express them in terms that appear racist. If you say you don't want muslim or mexican immigrants, you are going to find yourself in trouble. If you are against gay rights, you are going to get into trouble. You can say it is unfair, but if your political views involve wanting to deny rights to your coworkers, you are going to have a problem. Bottom line, there are certain political views that are just wrong. If you are against rights for some of your coworkers or if you have racist beliefs, you can't expect to not have consequences.
- zerostar07 9y ago
  Why do you feel that you need to discuss politics at work? Based on the responses your comment got , it would be a disaster. "think as you like but behave like others"

k__ 9y ago

Isn't this a good thing? I mean if there aren't any conservatives now, it means it got big without them. Why should it add such people? This would only lead to its demise.

ludicast 9y ago
You could extend that logic to any minority then.
- aphextron 9y ago
  I'm not sure I would describe a political party with complete control of all 3 branches of US government as a "minority".
  - k__ 9y ago
    This. Also it's kinda interesting that a place that doesn't favor conservatives is much more successful than the rest of the world.
    - creaghpatr 9y ago
      Would you make that comment about women and POC? Because they are underrepresented in Silicon Valley as well.
      - k__ 9y ago
        I don't know if I'm moving the goal post here, but as far as I know POC and women aren't per definition known for doing the opposite of what made SV successful (-> not conserving old stuff, but trying new and innovative things)
        leakybit 9y ago
        What evidence do you have to say that liberal => SV successful and not white liberal men => SV successful

Apreche 9y ago

Good

aphextron 9y ago

This is entirely the fault of conservatives. There is no such thing as legitimate conservative thought in the US any longer. The entire movement has been hijacked by fundamentalist Christians and racist rich people. Aligning yourself with such an ideology rightfully has a serious social cost now. As a brown person, do you know what my first thoughts of someone who describes themselves as "conservative" are? I'll give you a hint: it has nothing to do with fiscal policy. You can't blame people for not wanting to be made uncomfortable in that way.

jitl 9y ago
I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. It’s racism that’s not.
- aphextron 9y ago
  >I think there’s a wide difference between “classical” conservatism of the likes of George H. W.; and the tea party/trump/nazi ideology soup. I think the first kind is fine and welcome to an extent. Precisely. We need conservatism. We need that part of our conscience which says "well, hold on a minute", or "hey we can't afford that" in order to function properly as a democracy. It's loss is a tragedy, and the corruption of those ideals over the past 30 years into what it has become is breaking our country.
  - irhd 9y ago
    > We need conservatism I disagree at this point honestly. course all I've ever seen of american conservatism is the current republican party.
    - pwinnski 9y ago
      This seems like an instance of SV's bias toward the young biting SV in the collective butt. People who remember the 70s and 80s remember a different political environment.

anthmcc 9y ago

I'm working on a memo about how conservatives are just less interested in tech. /s Is this a tech problem or a Californian city problem?

zwerdlds 9y ago
Plenty of conservatives in the central valley. Maybe it's a Bay Area phenomenon.
- vorotato 9y ago
  I haven't observed it so it's probably a Bay Area/California thing. I'm in the south east and while it's slightly more liberal than the norm for the area most the people are still very capitalist, moderate right wing, and usually traditional social norms. So yeah if you live in a super liberal place people are going to have a liberal bias. I was born and raised in the south, it has a conservative bias, and I don't pretend that it's magically going to go away. I think if you're aware that your political positions are a far deviation from the norm for your area it's probably wise to not be loud about it. Especially if your position is somewhere along the lines of "My coworker shouldn't be here for reasons that are a protected class". They'll fire you just to CYA, independent of whether they agree with you or not.

dublinben 9y ago

Is "ideological diversity" really a kind of diversity that companies should care about? Party membership isn't a protected class, and Republicans are hardly a persecuted minority during a time when they control all 3 branches of government. Should we be making efforts to be more inclusive of other underrepresented ideologies like creationism, flat-earthism, or geocentrism?

creaghpatr 9y ago
>Party membership isn't a protected class In California it is: https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employment-discrimination-31690.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/california-employmen...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
zwerdlds 9y ago
Political party is, in fact, a protected class in CA.
revmoo 9y ago
Thinking the Earth is flat and believing in small government are not really the sort of thing I'd conflate...

kyleblarson 9y ago

Tim Ferris summed it up well: Silicon Valley also has an insidious infection that is spreading -- a peculiar form of McCarthyism (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCarthyism) masquerading as liberal open-mindedness. I'm as socially liberal as you get, and I find it nauseating how many topics or dissenting opinions are simply out-of-bounds in Silicon Valley. These days, people with real jobs (unlike me) are risking their careers to even challenge collective delusions in SF. Isn't this supposed to be where people change the world by challenging the consensus reality? By seeing the hidden realities behind the facades? That's the whole reason I traveled west and started over in the Bay Area. Now, more and more, I feel like it's a Russian nesting doll of facades -- Washington DC with fewer neck ties, where people openly lie to one another out of fear of losing their jobs or being publicly crucified. It's weird, unsettling, and, frankly, really dangerous. There's way too much power here for politeness to be sustainable. If no one feels they can say "Hey, I know it makes everyone uncomfortable, but I think there's a leak in the fuel rods in this nuclear submarine..." we're headed for big trouble

frenchie4111 9y ago
What is the source of this? I am interested in what topics/opinions he believes are out-of-bounds.
- RestlessMind 9y ago
  Here are a few examples of the topics I don't want to discuss at work, because my workplace is full of zealots who would accuse me of bigotry and I don't want to get entangled in HR discussions: - illegal immigration - importance of "pipeline" on workplace diversity - effectiveness of company policies to foster diversity A side effect is that open conversations are now almost silenced in a company which once prided on open culture. People now speak out only in smaller cliques of their friends, and this is having a massively negative impact on company culture.
  - jbob2000 9y ago
    Illegal immigration is a distracting election talking point. It affects us much less than it is purported to. And I’ve thought that news articles about company diversity are hit jobs to move a stock price. In any case, these topics have high emotional stakes, but are completely subjective. Unlike talking about your favorite movies, which is also a subjective topic, but with much less emotional investment. I have to ask; why do you want to talk to your coworkers about this stuff? What are you going to get out of it? Are you trying to feel justified about an opinion you hold? I just have no idea why anyone would want to talk about this with people they have to get along with everyday.

carlosdp 9y ago

Oh please, there's a difference between "conservative" and "batshit crazy". If you get up and say you don't think medicine can/should be socialized in America, I don't think you're going to get ostracized at most companies, that's a serious debate and there are many sides. If you say gays shouldn't marry or that CNN is fake news media, yea you're going to get ostracized. Not because you're conservative, but because you're an idiot and are making your coworkers super uncomfortable. The same would happen if you went around saying "people who wear red jackets are inferior" when one of your team members wears their favorite red jacket to work everyday.

ganoushoreilly 9y ago
I disagree. I joined a conversation a few years back about gun ownership. I said I support people's rights to own them and in fact I owned one too. The result was an argument about how now because It was known that I'm ok with gun ownership, one of my counterparts now felt threatened at work and requested that i'd be moved. So while I agree there is a difference between batshit crazy and conservative, there's also a difference between batshit crazy and liberal of which there are many on both sides.
- zwerdlds 9y ago
  It's just the free market adjusting!
- jbob2000 9y ago
  Our minds our faliable, it’s definitely a risk owning a gun - to yourself, coworkers, and family. Sure, you’re fine today, but get overworked for a few months or laid off, a bit of mania sets in, and then all of a sudden you’re on the evening news. The Las Vegas shooter had just won a huge jackpot before he committed his crime, people can snap in the weirdest of ways. Given that workplace violence is a thing that happens, and the high emotions business sometimes gets us in, you definitely made a mistake telling coworkers you own a gun.
  - ganoushoreilly 9y ago

matt4077 9y ago

Not being in the US, I have a variety of friends including communists, feminists, social democrats, libertarians, free-market opportunists, and conservative catholics. But under no circumstances would I legitimise what currently passes as a "conservative" in the US by associating with them. Just take the current Trump vs all of Britain disagreement as an example: I think Brexit is among the worst ideas, ever. Yet I would never turn down the opportunity for a tea with Theresa May, because we share a fundamental understanding that it's probably a bad idea to endorse xenophobic hate groups by retweeting their fake propaganda.

RickJWag 9y ago
I'd like to point out that Trump was a Democrat for nearly his entire life, just up until the point when he hijacked the Republican party (against great efforts from the Bush family, Mitt Romney, etc.) Confusing Donald Trump with a conservative is a mistake. As for Evangelical conservatives, I'd suggest you have a few conversations with some and then form an opinion. So long as you are respectful and make reasonable assertions, I am sure you'll come away with a different point of view.

elandybarr 9y ago

I have a network of conservative tech friends in Seattle and coordinate with various pro-Trump tech individuals around the country. I think from the comments on here (many done under unattributable usernames) it is clear to see why most stay far under the radar. There is a very real fear of negative career consequences in the tech industry for having views that are mainstream in broad swathes of the country that so enables the tech industry's success. While some blowback may be manageable for someone with demonstrable skills and few longterm commitments, it has a chilling effect for those with families and mortgages. And for those who think that none of their peers voted for the US president, I can tell you that you are likely mistaken. For those that think that conservatives can't innovate or fit into the tech industry, I counter that there are very successful people all over the industry, but given that there is little upside and high risk to mentioning it publicly, it is understandable that one would have a different perception.

jitix 9y ago
Valid point but the main issue is that the ranks of conservatives are filled with discriminatory, bigoted and racist people. Its hard to differentiate a political conservative from a KKK member/Neo Nazi/Anti-LGBT person. And I certainly don't want to work with any of these characters nor will I hire them because if you're a KKK member, Neo Nazi, etc. it shows that you cannot think objectively and rationally. And in that case no matter how good you're with algorithms you'll eventually cause damage to the technology and/or the team.

neuralFatigue 9y ago

I don't disagree with there being a liberal bias in SV companies, I think that's pretty damn obvious. I'm curious though why such observations are made for SV only, why don't publicly social conservative organizations e.g Hobby Lobby, Chic-fil-a etc get asked similar questions? It would be safe to assume that things like same sex marriage, contraception would be considered out of bounds there. Is it just because of the size/reach of the tech industry ?

arprocter 9y ago
I guess the argument would be that you can buy craft supplies/chicken sandwiches from alternate sellers
- neuralFatigue 9y ago
  Well no one is forced used SV services, people are free not to use them. Also my point was not from a consumer standpoint but more from an employee/media standpoint.

incogitomode 9y ago

From the article: "In interviews, many tech employees and executives said they believed conservative views on issues like tax policy and regulation are welcome in Silicon Valley. But conservative views on social issues like gay marriage, civil rights and immigration meet more resistance ..." While many of those issues seem like fair game in a (presumed) secular business environment, I don't see how an expressed conservative viewpoint that actively opposes civil or equal rights can be tolerated in a workplace. It is a necessary basis for any sort of collegiality and cooperation. At the same time, I can imagine people freely saying disparaging things about conservatives (it's hard for me to resist sometimes) that would make for a hostile environment. I'd hope large SV companies could occasionally remind employees of that fact.

lolwutf 9y ago
The problem, like most in life, is not in the expression of the conservative viewpoints but in the definition and application of 'actively opposing civil or equal rights'. Some people feel The Wall 'actively opposes civil or equal rights'. Or transgenders in the military. Or etc, etc etc... Many conservatives feel that conservative viewpoints on hot topic issues are rational decisions. They're often not out to 'actively oppose civil or equal rights'.

erics32 9y ago

This reminds me of when the James Damore news first broke out and multiple Google hiring managers were openly bragging on G+ about maintaining blacklists of everyone who didn't denounce the diversity memo.

kapauldo 9y ago

I don't see why this is a struggle