8 ms·

When the topic of underrepresented groups comes up regarding women and minorities, the reason given a lot is that “they’re not interested” or something along th

When the topic of underrepresented groups comes up regarding women and minorities, the reason given a lot is that “they’re not interested” or something along those lines. Why would that not be the same reason here?

andybak 9y ago
I like this line of argument. Conservatives have learnt to use the language of social justice as a strategic weapon against liberals. So the same strategy should work in reverse. The endgame hopefully is that intellectually dishonest strategies from all sides become discredited.
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  It's silly that they never used this language before that. Social Justice is a prime teaching from Christianity (in fact in all the Abrahamic religions). Seeing how religious the conservatives are, you'd think they'd have been the ones starting this trend.
- kelukelugames 9y ago
  hahaha I can't wait for some Valley employee to write a paper on how biological differences between democrats and republicans...sorry, "average biological differences" causes different distributions.
manfredo 9y ago
Is it? I've never witnessed a Bay Area tech company state that their under representation of women and minorities is due to a different distribution of preferences in these groups as compared to men and whites & Asians. On the contrary, in some tech companies doing this appears to be a fireable offense. Also, the point is not that less conservatives are in tech companies is the issue. I am under no illusion that probably no more than 10-15% of SV tech workers are going to be conservative. This is well within my personal estimate judging from people I met in university (during which they were more open about their political leanings) who went on to go into tech. It's that the conservatives that are (and even centrists and less-extreme liberals) feel the need to put on a facade while at work and that the political environment has become isolated to the extent that even mainstream conservative and even centrist views are considered abjectly racist or wrong. I'd consider an office with 5% conservatives where those conservatives feel empowered to share their opinion to be a better working environment, as compared to an office with 25% conservatives where all those conservatives put on a facade of liberalism out of fear of repercussion.
- door3 9y ago
  What does conservatism mean to you? When you say 'conservative', what beliefs are you describing?
  - manfredo 9y ago
    These terms are ambiguous and have fluid meaning. But in general, anything on the Republican party platform, or supported by a substantial portion of Republicans or self-identified conservatives, is something I would consider part of mainstream conservatism. Quick examples include: * That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted. * That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law. * That welfare programs should be cut back. * That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy. * That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful. * That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers) * That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias. These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements. "Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.
    - tanilama 9y ago
      How is meritocracy conservative exactly? I worked in a big tech company in Bay Area, and it is empathized in my hiring training session heavily that we are not afraid to miss good people but we are afraid to end up with bad ones. Not agree with far-left opinion != Being conservative. A lot of my colleagues who happily brand themselves as liberal, all think unregulated illegal immigration will cause problem, I don't think there is any chance they will self identify as conservative. As an individual I might agree with some of the points, but disagree with the rest, like I all for more restrictive gun control and think it is due to an outdated law. It is indeed a problem itself to force people into two buckets and create a us-vs-the-world mentality.
wyager 9y ago
I agree, this probably explains why there are fewer conservatives in software; they are less likely to want to work in software. However, this isn’t actually the issue - the issue is that the (relatively small) population of conservative-leaning (or just not-entirely-liberal) people in SV and elsewhere cannot expect to speak their minds and also keep their careers. Even relatively milquetoast, vaguely conservative people like Brendan Eich are (evidently) at serious risk.
PeterisP 9y ago
It could be a reason, but it's a different issue - for women and ethnic minorities it's clear how many of them there are. However, for conservatives it's an open question of whether they really are underrepresented or they seem underrepresented because they're hiding their viewpoint. Perhaps a more useful parallel would be sexual orientation a couple decades ago, where there used to be all kinds of policies like "don't ask, don't tell" and you might have gotten an impression that your company or industry has very few gay people while in fact they're there just hiding in the closet.
- IntronExon 9y ago
  Conservatives control the executive and legislative branches of government, and are therefore extremely well represented nationally. Meanwhile you’re comparing this to closeted gay people decades ago. Maybe it’s not politics that gets you into trouble, it just seems that some people will never be dominant enough for their tastes.
  - PeterisP 9y ago
    It's not about who is dominant, it's about the fundamental right of the non-dominant minority (whatever that is in any particular place and time) to express themselves and not having to hide. Equality of opportunities/rights for the particular individual wherever they may be, not attempting to get equality of outcomes for the aggregate by harming individual rights or justifying local oppression by some wider goal. If a gay person has to hide their orientation, it's bad - not because gays need protection, but because that individual is restricted. If someone has to hide their religion, it's bad - not because that religion needs protection, but because that person gets restricted. If someone has to hide their political affiliation - same thing, no matter if it's support of some presidential candidate, legalization or criminalization of some drug, support for or against unions, etc, etc.
    - IntronExon 9y ago
      That’s the excuse I hear a lot from people who, upon closer inspection, simply see spouting their particular brand of extreme intolerance as something which should be utterly free of backlash. People like Peter Thiel, who seem to be some flavor of neo-nazi/white nationalist and don’t like that their noxious opinions have little remaining audience. You have every right to speak, and people have the same right to speak against you. I don’t agree with the kind of treatment someone like Jacob Rees Mogg received when he tried to speak at a university, but someone like Thiel? To hell with him.
ImSkeptical 9y ago
I think there is probably something to this explanation. One reason I've seen for why women prefer not to go into start ups, for example, is that it's more of a high risk, high reward, gamble - which is typically more interesting to men. Likewise, ideologically conservative people are likely disposed not to make such risks. The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Do we have representation of women/conservatives/whatever in proportion to demographics?" Instead, the question should be "Are we treating people unfairly?" For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems.
- abusoufiyan 9y ago
  >For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems. They aren't equal things though. The latter is basically you promoting the idea that people of different backgrounds aren't as welcome in the workplace. Especially if your workplace hires anyone on an H1-B or on any other kind of visa, or anyone from Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the other Muslim ban countries. I get that in terms of an election they are both equally valid political candidates. But the actual substance of both pieces of clothing is different. One is easily going to divide any workplace where you have employees of foreign nationalities or minorities and the other isn't. There's a reason why what you expect from both scenarios makes sense.
  - ImSkeptical 9y ago
    Where I work a lot of people are on H1-B type visas. At least I assume they are. Probably between one third and one half of employees are foreign born. On the one hand, I get what you're saying. My MAGA hat might be objectionable to a lot of coworkers. On the other hand, I also think things like "I wonder if the large portion of foreign born workers are effectively suppressing my wages" because they increase supply of labor. I can't help but wonder if I'd be making more money, or higher up the chain, or just relatively better off without H1-B visas. And then, it's interesting to connect the dots - the candidates who want to keep importing labor, and therefore suppressing wages, those candidates are fine to support. But if you support a candidate who wants to import less labor, which might help current labor class members while hurting the big companies - well then you're a toxic, racist, jerk, etc. Weird that the big companies think that way - right? I also understand that my reasoning is selfish. But, I pay taxes. My parents paid taxes. We support the organization that is the US government - shouldn't that organization be working for our benefit and not the benefit of foreign laborers and big companies? I think if one political opinion is banned, then both should be.

andybak 9y ago

I like this line of argument. Conservatives have learnt to use the language of social justice as a strategic weapon against liberals. So the same strategy should work in reverse. The endgame hopefully is that intellectually dishonest strategies from all sides become discredited.

abusoufiyan 9y ago
It's silly that they never used this language before that. Social Justice is a prime teaching from Christianity (in fact in all the Abrahamic religions). Seeing how religious the conservatives are, you'd think they'd have been the ones starting this trend.
kelukelugames 9y ago
hahaha I can't wait for some Valley employee to write a paper on how biological differences between democrats and republicans...sorry, "average biological differences" causes different distributions.

manfredo 9y ago

Is it? I've never witnessed a Bay Area tech company state that their under representation of women and minorities is due to a different distribution of preferences in these groups as compared to men and whites & Asians. On the contrary, in some tech companies doing this appears to be a fireable offense. Also, the point is not that less conservatives are in tech companies is the issue. I am under no illusion that probably no more than 10-15% of SV tech workers are going to be conservative. This is well within my personal estimate judging from people I met in university (during which they were more open about their political leanings) who went on to go into tech. It's that the conservatives that are (and even centrists and less-extreme liberals) feel the need to put on a facade while at work and that the political environment has become isolated to the extent that even mainstream conservative and even centrist views are considered abjectly racist or wrong. I'd consider an office with 5% conservatives where those conservatives feel empowered to share their opinion to be a better working environment, as compared to an office with 25% conservatives where all those conservatives put on a facade of liberalism out of fear of repercussion.

door3 9y ago
What does conservatism mean to you? When you say 'conservative', what beliefs are you describing?
- manfredo 9y ago
  These terms are ambiguous and have fluid meaning. But in general, anything on the Republican party platform, or supported by a substantial portion of Republicans or self-identified conservatives, is something I would consider part of mainstream conservatism. Quick examples include: * That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted. * That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law. * That welfare programs should be cut back. * That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy. * That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful. * That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers) * That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias. These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements. "Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.
  - tanilama 9y ago
    How is meritocracy conservative exactly? I worked in a big tech company in Bay Area, and it is empathized in my hiring training session heavily that we are not afraid to miss good people but we are afraid to end up with bad ones. Not agree with far-left opinion != Being conservative. A lot of my colleagues who happily brand themselves as liberal, all think unregulated illegal immigration will cause problem, I don't think there is any chance they will self identify as conservative. As an individual I might agree with some of the points, but disagree with the rest, like I all for more restrictive gun control and think it is due to an outdated law. It is indeed a problem itself to force people into two buckets and create a us-vs-the-world mentality.

wyager 9y ago

I agree, this probably explains why there are fewer conservatives in software; they are less likely to want to work in software. However, this isn’t actually the issue - the issue is that the (relatively small) population of conservative-leaning (or just not-entirely-liberal) people in SV and elsewhere cannot expect to speak their minds and also keep their careers. Even relatively milquetoast, vaguely conservative people like Brendan Eich are (evidently) at serious risk.

PeterisP 9y ago

It could be a reason, but it's a different issue - for women and ethnic minorities it's clear how many of them there are. However, for conservatives it's an open question of whether they really are underrepresented or they seem underrepresented because they're hiding their viewpoint. Perhaps a more useful parallel would be sexual orientation a couple decades ago, where there used to be all kinds of policies like "don't ask, don't tell" and you might have gotten an impression that your company or industry has very few gay people while in fact they're there just hiding in the closet.

IntronExon 9y ago
Conservatives control the executive and legislative branches of government, and are therefore extremely well represented nationally. Meanwhile you’re comparing this to closeted gay people decades ago. Maybe it’s not politics that gets you into trouble, it just seems that some people will never be dominant enough for their tastes.
- PeterisP 9y ago
  It's not about who is dominant, it's about the fundamental right of the non-dominant minority (whatever that is in any particular place and time) to express themselves and not having to hide. Equality of opportunities/rights for the particular individual wherever they may be, not attempting to get equality of outcomes for the aggregate by harming individual rights or justifying local oppression by some wider goal. If a gay person has to hide their orientation, it's bad - not because gays need protection, but because that individual is restricted. If someone has to hide their religion, it's bad - not because that religion needs protection, but because that person gets restricted. If someone has to hide their political affiliation - same thing, no matter if it's support of some presidential candidate, legalization or criminalization of some drug, support for or against unions, etc, etc.
  - IntronExon 9y ago
    That’s the excuse I hear a lot from people who, upon closer inspection, simply see spouting their particular brand of extreme intolerance as something which should be utterly free of backlash. People like Peter Thiel, who seem to be some flavor of neo-nazi/white nationalist and don’t like that their noxious opinions have little remaining audience. You have every right to speak, and people have the same right to speak against you. I don’t agree with the kind of treatment someone like Jacob Rees Mogg received when he tried to speak at a university, but someone like Thiel? To hell with him.

ImSkeptical 9y ago

I think there is probably something to this explanation. One reason I've seen for why women prefer not to go into start ups, for example, is that it's more of a high risk, high reward, gamble - which is typically more interesting to men. Likewise, ideologically conservative people are likely disposed not to make such risks. The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Do we have representation of women/conservatives/whatever in proportion to demographics?" Instead, the question should be "Are we treating people unfairly?" For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems.

abusoufiyan 9y ago
>For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems. They aren't equal things though. The latter is basically you promoting the idea that people of different backgrounds aren't as welcome in the workplace. Especially if your workplace hires anyone on an H1-B or on any other kind of visa, or anyone from Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the other Muslim ban countries. I get that in terms of an election they are both equally valid political candidates. But the actual substance of both pieces of clothing is different. One is easily going to divide any workplace where you have employees of foreign nationalities or minorities and the other isn't. There's a reason why what you expect from both scenarios makes sense.
- ImSkeptical 9y ago
  Where I work a lot of people are on H1-B type visas. At least I assume they are. Probably between one third and one half of employees are foreign born. On the one hand, I get what you're saying. My MAGA hat might be objectionable to a lot of coworkers. On the other hand, I also think things like "I wonder if the large portion of foreign born workers are effectively suppressing my wages" because they increase supply of labor. I can't help but wonder if I'd be making more money, or higher up the chain, or just relatively better off without H1-B visas. And then, it's interesting to connect the dots - the candidates who want to keep importing labor, and therefore suppressing wages, those candidates are fine to support. But if you support a candidate who wants to import less labor, which might help current labor class members while hurting the big companies - well then you're a toxic, racist, jerk, etc. Weird that the big companies think that way - right? I also understand that my reasoning is selfish. But, I pay taxes. My parents paid taxes. We support the organization that is the US government - shouldn't that organization be working for our benefit and not the benefit of foreign laborers and big companies? I think if one political opinion is banned, then both should be.