4 ms·

My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist

My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist. I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. Also his comment is right there so I'm hardly revising history here, I'm just being specific about the part that I'm responding to.

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago
> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies. What viewpoints, indeed? Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphrasing heavily): 1. "I'm afraid the government will take away my right to own guns, which is enshrined in the second amendment to allow citizens to overthrow an unjust government." 2. "I'm worried that the current political correct climate will infringe upon my right to free speech, enshrined in the first amendment." 3. "I don't want my church, which is against homosexuality, to be forced to marry gay couples." 4. "I don't want 'confused men' to be in the same restroom as my underage daughters." These are just the most recent examples I can think of. Generally, I find that most of what I hear these days falls into two categories: Fear, and thinly-veiled contempt for people who are different. If there are other conservative viewpoints that I'm not hearing, I'm happy to correct my ignorance. That being said, I find the very idea that the entire spectrum of human imagination can be compressed to 1 bit of information (left or right wing) is deeply insulting and, if true, one hell of an indictment of our species.
- tntn 9y ago
  Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."
  - majormajor 9y ago
    Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner. That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.
    - Veelox 9y ago
      I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa. Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
    - tntn 9y ago
      You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage. Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
      - majormajor 9y ago
        Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit. And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc. tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)
tntn 9y ago
> My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist. Or don't think gay marriage should be legal, or are religious, or dislike welfare, or oppose the ACA, or think abortion should be illegal. EDIT: Or thinks having separate male and female bathrooms makes a lot of sense, or supports strict immigration policies, or oppose affirmative action, or thinks "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone" should be a real thing, or ... But yeah, just racist & sexist.
- guyzero 9y ago
  So you're saying people have been discriminated against in SFBA tech companies for believing in strict immigration policies? This seems like a pretty strong claim and I'm curious what examples you have other than it being something most people don't agree with.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    Being accused of being a racist on an internal company form happen to me.
  - d1zzy 9y ago
    Depends on if that creates a hostile work environment or not. If a lot of your coworkers would be (or believe that they would be) negatively impacted by the policies you publicly support and talk about, then it's reasonable to think that they will have trouble working together with you and it's reasonable to think then that management may not see you expressing these views as something useful or positive for the company. And by "negative" above I do not mean that they would be inconvenienced, I mean that these policies may have drastic consequences on their lives and families, something it is much harder for those people to not have an emotional response to.
- seba_dos1 9y ago
  Thinking gay marriage shouldn't be legal is not "conservative", it's plain discriminating. Denying abortions to others is a bit muddier, but somewhat similar - forcing your own, not universally accepted moral code on others isn't exactly the nicest thing to do after all. I don't know much about ACA, so can't say anything about it. With those three out of sight, I'm really interested in what kind of discrimination people in SFBA tech that are religious or dislike welfare face.
Veelox 9y ago
>I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. Advocating for enforcement of immigration laws has gotten me accused of being a racist/bigot.
arkades 9y ago
At a tangent to the Damore issue, on to the more general issue of conservatives claiming a feeling of being discriminated against; There was this expression that got a bit popular during the early days of OWS: if someone tells you they’re thirsty, don’t tell them they’re not. Give them a glass of water. I’ve heard concerns about self-censorship from enough actual real-life people, as opposed to Fox News blowhards, that I have to assume there’s at least a seed of truth to that. Something something lived experiences. We can disagree as to why these people feel that way, and whether that’s a good thing (I’m perfrxtly happy with Nazis feeling like they’re a hated group, for instance), but maybe we should be respectful enough of people not to tell them they’re not living what they’re telling us they’re living. That said, so much of conservative social policy has become thinly veiled discrimination of one sort or another - or is so closely associated with it that one can’t hear one without thinking the other - that it’s difficult to separate out views that need to be protected and views that need to be censored, without vilifying “conservative” in general.

CiPHPerCoder 9y ago

> I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. I think this is a far more useful inquiry (i.e. what specific points) than generalized ideologies. What viewpoints, indeed? Many of the ones I hear from my self-described conservative friends and the public personalities they follow fall into these categories (my word choice, not them, I'm paraphrasing heavily): 1. "I'm afraid the government will take away my right to own guns, which is enshrined in the second amendment to allow citizens to overthrow an unjust government." 2. "I'm worried that the current political correct climate will infringe upon my right to free speech, enshrined in the first amendment." 3. "I don't want my church, which is against homosexuality, to be forced to marry gay couples." 4. "I don't want 'confused men' to be in the same restroom as my underage daughters." These are just the most recent examples I can think of. Generally, I find that most of what I hear these days falls into two categories: Fear, and thinly-veiled contempt for people who are different. If there are other conservative viewpoints that I'm not hearing, I'm happy to correct my ignorance. That being said, I find the very idea that the entire spectrum of human imagination can be compressed to 1 bit of information (left or right wing) is deeply insulting and, if true, one hell of an indictment of our species.

tntn 9y ago
Is #3 an example of fear or "thinly-veiled contempt"? Seems to express something more like "I believe in moral absolutes" and "some things are sacred."
- majormajor 9y ago
  Very few people are able to put together a fact- and logic-based argument for why questions of morality like that should be questions of legality. E.g. why it's more like murder or theft or assault and less like lying or adultery. It's perfectly possible to think homosexuality is a sin and not think it should be illegal, and to treat homosexuals as perfectly decent humans who you would interact with in all the same ways you would anyone else. To a Christian, after all, everyone is a sinner. That significantly undermines those causes to secular listeners. Without being able to do so, it usually sounds simply fear- or dislike- based. Much more like prejudice than like a sound basis for policy. https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 https://www.amazon.com/dp/B003EO8ER0 for more, from the inside, on the withdrawal by the American evangelical community from intellectual sphere. The right's "PC" instincts - shout down and kick out the heretics - has crippled their ability to convince those who don't already agree. The left is in danger of getting to the same place, but it's hilariously ironic how evangelicals don't recognize the mote in their own eye on this one.
  - Veelox 9y ago
    I think that in general morality should reflect legality. That is to say, the things that are moral should be legal, then things that are immoral should illegal and vis versa. Is that a sufficient logic-based argument on why questions of morality should be questions of legality?
  - tntn 9y ago
    You are talking the legality of same-sex marriage. Point #3 is not talking about the legality of same-sex marriage. It is an opposition to compelling people to be complicit in same-sex marriage. Churches may still have some protection against being compelled to marry gay couples, but bakers sure as hell don't have any protection against having to make cakes for gay weddings, so it is reasonable to worry that the protections for churches may crumble soon.
    - majormajor 9y ago
      Why is being "complicit" in same sex marriage any worse than being "complicit" in a marriage for someone who has sinned, possibly grievously, in other ways? The difference is only in the obviousness, and it's not clear to me that that's a good reason. It appears internally inconsistent in a way I've never heard a sufficient explanation for. And as someone who no longer believes, who does support the explicit non-theocratic nature of American government, I think that's a reasonable bar to hold others to. The major emphasis in Christianity as it was taught to me was never on "enabling," it was on one's own beliefs and fruit. And to the sibling about "legality should reflect morality": I take a much more conservative stance on that. There you would have to do much more work to convince me that legality should merely reflect a particular snapshot of a particular group's morality, as the American founders - with very good reason based on their experience in Europe - explicitly rejected that. So I think you'll need to develop that thesis a lot before it convinces me to break with American tradition, there. I favor a view that enough concrete harm has to be demonstrated to justify more restrictions, more police, etc. tldr: many religious Republican views like these are not actually all that conservative ;)

tntn 9y ago

> My point is that discrimination against conservative viewpoints is not a significant phenomenon in SFBA tech, unless by "conservative" you mean sexist or racist. Or don't think gay marriage should be legal, or are religious, or dislike welfare, or oppose the ACA, or think abortion should be illegal. EDIT: Or thinks having separate male and female bathrooms makes a lot of sense, or supports strict immigration policies, or oppose affirmative action, or thinks "we reserve the right to deny service to anyone" should be a real thing, or ... But yeah, just racist & sexist.

guyzero 9y ago
So you're saying people have been discriminated against in SFBA tech companies for believing in strict immigration policies? This seems like a pretty strong claim and I'm curious what examples you have other than it being something most people don't agree with.
- Veelox 9y ago
  Being accused of being a racist on an internal company form happen to me.
- d1zzy 9y ago
  Depends on if that creates a hostile work environment or not. If a lot of your coworkers would be (or believe that they would be) negatively impacted by the policies you publicly support and talk about, then it's reasonable to think that they will have trouble working together with you and it's reasonable to think then that management may not see you expressing these views as something useful or positive for the company. And by "negative" above I do not mean that they would be inconvenienced, I mean that these policies may have drastic consequences on their lives and families, something it is much harder for those people to not have an emotional response to.
seba_dos1 9y ago
Thinking gay marriage shouldn't be legal is not "conservative", it's plain discriminating. Denying abortions to others is a bit muddier, but somewhat similar - forcing your own, not universally accepted moral code on others isn't exactly the nicest thing to do after all. I don't know much about ACA, so can't say anything about it. With those three out of sight, I'm really interested in what kind of discrimination people in SFBA tech that are religious or dislike welfare face.

Veelox 9y ago

>I'm really curious what conservative viewpoints people espouse that they feel they've been discriminated against for. Advocating for enforcement of immigration laws has gotten me accused of being a racist/bigot.

arkades 9y ago

At a tangent to the Damore issue, on to the more general issue of conservatives claiming a feeling of being discriminated against; There was this expression that got a bit popular during the early days of OWS: if someone tells you they’re thirsty, don’t tell them they’re not. Give them a glass of water. I’ve heard concerns about self-censorship from enough actual real-life people, as opposed to Fox News blowhards, that I have to assume there’s at least a seed of truth to that. Something something lived experiences. We can disagree as to why these people feel that way, and whether that’s a good thing (I’m perfrxtly happy with Nazis feeling like they’re a hated group, for instance), but maybe we should be respectful enough of people not to tell them they’re not living what they’re telling us they’re living. That said, so much of conservative social policy has become thinly veiled discrimination of one sort or another - or is so closely associated with it that one can’t hear one without thinking the other - that it’s difficult to separate out views that need to be protected and views that need to be censored, without vilifying “conservative” in general.