10 ms·

I remember being in argentina a couple of years back and seeing the "Political correctness" pro-trump slogan and thinking how dumb that sounded. Moved back to

I remember being in argentina a couple of years back and seeing the "Political correctness" pro-trump slogan and thinking how dumb that sounded. Moved back to SF, and there is a HUGE difference of what it was for me 5 years ago. The people I know are way more cautious and the people I don't are even more afraid. The Damore essay is still one of the unspeakables. I know I fear getting fired if i publicly said i agreed with it, even though i never read it or did anything of the sort. That to me is a ridiculous state of things.

eanzenberg 9y ago
Those people probably have more to lose now if they spoke freely of ideas that were antithetical to their surroundings.
xocyabencl 9y ago
Can you explain your last paragraph further? Obviously saying you agree with something you never read is a bad idea. Since you haven't read it, you don't know how bad it is, right? For all you know it could be Mein Kampf. Or it could just say your boss is an idiot, or that working at your company is a waste of time, etc. Especially as a knowledge worker, ideas you espouse at work could affect your employability, so you should know what they are before espousing them. We aren't a bunch of robots - our productivity is influenced by what our colleagues say.
- angersock 9y ago
  > We aren't a bunch of robots - our productivity is influenced by what our colleagues say. Indeed! That's why it's so concerning to some of us that our colleagues are apparently children who blindly parrot misinterpretations of source material and call for blood over their own fabricated outrage.
  - xocyabencl 9y ago
    I think we're on the same page here - you shouldn't claim to know the content of something you never read.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  Godwin's law came fast on this one! A part of me is uninterested in reading it because I find other topics way more interesting. But a part of me also feels I can't read it. Because if I read it and I agree with it, I will have to balance honesty and integrity with oppression. All my life I held all my controversial opinions quite openly, but this was the first time I actually fear being controversial. I'm with Voltaire on this one: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". A coworker can say something I disagree terribly with, that even could impact my life personally, and would consider it just the way people relate to each other, sometimes its not nice and thats it. "Moral outrage" on twitter is a ridiculous measure for progress or improvement over people's lifes. It does terrible damage in so many levels. And companies listening to that are just succumbing to their PR and legal department, not striving to an idealistic work environment. Google can be sued for not firing Damore!
  - xocyabencl 9y ago
    Godwin's law exists because "something we both agree is wrong" is a useful north star in an argument. Edit: If someone makes a general claim like "nobody should be fired for agreeing with any text x", it makes sense to test that claim by putting an extreme value in for x.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      Im not criticizing, if there is one thing the nazis did right was being a never ending example of what not to be/do. That said, I have not read Mein Kampf and its a similar situation. Is everything in that book ideological garbage? Maybe, maybe not. I actually dont know what its about! But trying to find that out in public can get you beat and people will clap in encouragement if that happened. Hell, I would be even afraid to google that book in amazon.
  - ScottBurson 9y ago
    You should definitely read it and make up your own mind: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...
dguaraglia 9y ago
The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one of them. I should know, I grew up there.
- conanbatt 9y ago
  I dont hold argentina as the standard of free speech, its just how a short stay outside of the U.S. made cultural changes very noticeable for me, and for the worse. ---- If politicians in Argentina had to resign the way they do in the US for what they say, anarchist would get their way.
  - dguaraglia 9y ago
    Let me introduce you to 2001, the year we had five presidents in the span of a couple months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_in_Argentina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_in_Argenti... The perceived notion that people have to resign for "what they say or think" in the US is overblown.
    - conanbatt 9y ago
      I'm Argentinian.
      - dguaraglia 9y ago
        Yo también.
- Houshalter 9y ago
  Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an "anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.) >they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Democracy sort of works because we tolerate each other anyway. When political polarization increases too much, bad things happen.

eanzenberg 9y ago

Those people probably have more to lose now if they spoke freely of ideas that were antithetical to their surroundings.

xocyabencl 9y ago

Can you explain your last paragraph further? Obviously saying you agree with something you never read is a bad idea. Since you haven't read it, you don't know how bad it is, right? For all you know it could be Mein Kampf. Or it could just say your boss is an idiot, or that working at your company is a waste of time, etc. Especially as a knowledge worker, ideas you espouse at work could affect your employability, so you should know what they are before espousing them. We aren't a bunch of robots - our productivity is influenced by what our colleagues say.

angersock 9y ago
> We aren't a bunch of robots - our productivity is influenced by what our colleagues say. Indeed! That's why it's so concerning to some of us that our colleagues are apparently children who blindly parrot misinterpretations of source material and call for blood over their own fabricated outrage.
- xocyabencl 9y ago
  I think we're on the same page here - you shouldn't claim to know the content of something you never read.
conanbatt 9y ago
Godwin's law came fast on this one! A part of me is uninterested in reading it because I find other topics way more interesting. But a part of me also feels I can't read it. Because if I read it and I agree with it, I will have to balance honesty and integrity with oppression. All my life I held all my controversial opinions quite openly, but this was the first time I actually fear being controversial. I'm with Voltaire on this one: "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.". A coworker can say something I disagree terribly with, that even could impact my life personally, and would consider it just the way people relate to each other, sometimes its not nice and thats it. "Moral outrage" on twitter is a ridiculous measure for progress or improvement over people's lifes. It does terrible damage in so many levels. And companies listening to that are just succumbing to their PR and legal department, not striving to an idealistic work environment. Google can be sued for not firing Damore!
- xocyabencl 9y ago
  Godwin's law exists because "something we both agree is wrong" is a useful north star in an argument. Edit: If someone makes a general claim like "nobody should be fired for agreeing with any text x", it makes sense to test that claim by putting an extreme value in for x.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    Im not criticizing, if there is one thing the nazis did right was being a never ending example of what not to be/do. That said, I have not read Mein Kampf and its a similar situation. Is everything in that book ideological garbage? Maybe, maybe not. I actually dont know what its about! But trying to find that out in public can get you beat and people will clap in encouragement if that happened. Hell, I would be even afraid to google that book in amazon.
- ScottBurson 9y ago
  You should definitely read it and make up your own mind: https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-Ideological-Echo-Chamber.pdf https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586/Googles-I...

dguaraglia 9y ago

The difference with Argentina is that Damore would have been told to make a constructive argument backed by actual science, rather than be hailed or STFU. Instead, in the US people were hailing him as a martyr of PC culture and telling everyone that they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Argentine culture has it's advantages, but "tolerance to new ideas" is not one of them. I should know, I grew up there.

conanbatt 9y ago
I dont hold argentina as the standard of free speech, its just how a short stay outside of the U.S. made cultural changes very noticeable for me, and for the worse. ---- If politicians in Argentina had to resign the way they do in the US for what they say, anarchist would get their way.
- dguaraglia 9y ago
  Let me introduce you to 2001, the year we had five presidents in the span of a couple months: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_in_Argentina https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/December_2001_riots_in_Argenti... The perceived notion that people have to resign for "what they say or think" in the US is overblown.
  - conanbatt 9y ago
    I'm Argentinian.
    - dguaraglia 9y ago
      Yo también.
Houshalter 9y ago
Damore did make a scientific case for his claims and referenced a bunch of studies. That's probably why it got so much attention. The original had a bunch of links and graphs and plots. But the version most people read was published by some newspaper that stripped all that stuff out (and titled it an "anti-diversity screed" just to show how unbiased they were.) >they should "respect all points of view" (no matter how flawed or ignorant they are.) Everyone believes their opponents beliefs are flawed and ignorant. Democracy sort of works because we tolerate each other anyway. When political polarization increases too much, bad things happen.