4 ms·

Part of my decision for leaving Google was the insane left leaning bias within the company. I never outed myself as a conservative person because I've heard cow

Part of my decision for leaving Google was the insane left leaning bias within the company. I never outed myself as a conservative person because I've heard coworkers equate republicans to monsters.

jayd16 8y ago
You should separate what Californians think of conservatives from what they think about Republicans. California has a lot of liberterian leaning views but not a lot of respect for the GOP.
ryanobjc 8y ago
I feel bad for conservatives these days. Your standard bearers are not very good people. For example at this very minute the rest of the world is discussing if trumps son really meant to be antisemetic or not. That’s the pinnacle of the modern GOP, which you have to admit is tied with political conservatism. GOP = conservative. What the fuck are the rest of us supposed to do with thus situation? You say you’re conservative... what does that mean you even believe in? Because your party apparently means white supremacy, anti-semitism, concern trolling over deficits, just for starters. So I guess the only choice is to decouple your beliefs with the GOP, right? Still though we’ve had decades of “GOP = conservative” messaging. You’re in a right pickle.
jasonvorhe 8y ago
Maybe being conservative just isn't that smart to begin with?
- dang 8y ago
  Please don't foment flamewars on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- stryk 8y ago
  THIS is a not-insignificant part of the problem. right here. You jumped straight out of the gate with calling the OP stupid. Not even a feigned attempt at some sort of discussion or debate. You saw the word "conservative" and BOOM it's right into the Us vs. Them, Me vs. You, Good vs. Evil. I just don't see how that is healthy, at all, for anyone or anything including the country. It's childish. Social media and karma/upvotes/likes/karma/fake-internet-points, whatever you want to call it, has devolved us into kids on the schoolyard. United we stand, divided we fall. grow up
  - ionised 8y ago
    I mean, if you look throughout history, even at the last century, you see civil rights actions that were vehemently opposed by conservatives and traditionalists. Votes for women, emancipation of slaves, equal rights for women, for blacks, for gays, for the transgendered, worker protections, abolition of child labour, mandatory paid leave, maternity leave, environmental protections etc. The list could go on, and in each and every instance we have had conservatives and traditionalists fighting them tooth and nail, and losing the battle every single time. While the comment the person you replied to is short and lacking in substance, I do think there is truth to it. What's that old Buddhist maxim? Change is the only constant in life or You cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails. Change is a certainty, but conservatives and traditionalists have made it their life's work to resist it.
didibus 8y ago
I find it reasonable, even somewhat logical, to label racists, sexists, homophobes, trans-phobes, immigrant-phobes, xenophobes, anti-semitists, islamophobes, etc. as monsters. Don't you? I'd be interested to hear why not? Personally, anyone who is actively seeking to enact hurtful policies against targeted individuals who have committed no crimes and shown no treat, in order to benefit themselves, could be logically qualified as a monster. An atrocity is defined as a cruel act. In that sense, if you support and encourage such acts, it seems appropriate to label you a monster. This has been true for most of history. At least with today's common morals, it seems to hold that historical act of cruelty are deemed as enacted by monsters. And marketing wise, republicans seem to have greatly associated themselves behind such people and policies. It's unfortunate if you fall in the camp only for everything else. Like say you just support gun rights, small governments and pro-life, because you truly believe that is best for everyone's livelihood, success, stability, prosperity, safety and happiness. Yet condemn and disagree firmly against acts of cruelty towards innocents. You might have people wondering why then you'd be willing to compromise one over the other, and question the truth of your condemnation.
- mciancia 8y ago
  Aaand that is just another example of what OP is talking about ;)
  - didibus 8y ago
    Can you explain how so? I guess I'm putting forward two points: 1) Being a hateful person with a desire to oppress innocents seems to aptly qualify for the label of monster. 2) Those who equate republicans with monsters do so because of the republicans' current active support and promotion of hateful people and their desire to oppress the innocents. Nothing here seems unfair to me, or irrational. I feel it all simply follows. Oppressors are labeled as monsters, groups that are represented by oppressors and support oppression have their members labeled as monsters. The logical follow up, is that if you yourself are not supportive of oppression, then disassociate yourself with the groups that are? Join another group that represents yourself more accurately? Form a new group which represents yourself more accurately? Or attempt to change the group so it becomes more accurately representative of yourself? Why, if you are against the oppression, would you continue to support the group otherwise? There's only two reason I can think of. Because you're a partisan, and you just feel an irrational sense of belonging, like if it was a big family you are part of, and this is just the clan you belong too no matter what. Or because you are okay with the oppression put forward by the group if it means you also get X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, Z are other policies like say banning abortion or maintaining gun rights.
cromwellian 8y ago
Depends on what Republicans you're talking about, the classic Buckley, Jack Kemp, Milton Friedman style of conservative, who you can have intellectual disagreements over economic policy about, or today's nationalist, xenophobic, cult-of-personality Republicans, which I'd call Trumplicans, who have abandoned everything classical liberals stood for (free trade, immigration, against crony capitalism) and now actively enable an administration that literally threatens to intervene in markets and pick winners or create losers. Or the people who burn their shoes and lose their minds every time someone (who is black) kneels at a football game. Those are the monsters.

Part of my decision for leaving Google was the insane left leaning bias within the company. I never outed myself as a conservative person because I've heard coworkers equate republicans to monsters.

jayd16 8y ago

You should separate what Californians think of conservatives from what they think about Republicans. California has a lot of liberterian leaning views but not a lot of respect for the GOP.

ryanobjc 8y ago

I feel bad for conservatives these days. Your standard bearers are not very good people. For example at this very minute the rest of the world is discussing if trumps son really meant to be antisemetic or not. That’s the pinnacle of the modern GOP, which you have to admit is tied with political conservatism. GOP = conservative. What the fuck are the rest of us supposed to do with thus situation? You say you’re conservative... what does that mean you even believe in? Because your party apparently means white supremacy, anti-semitism, concern trolling over deficits, just for starters. So I guess the only choice is to decouple your beliefs with the GOP, right? Still though we’ve had decades of “GOP = conservative” messaging. You’re in a right pickle.

jasonvorhe 8y ago

Maybe being conservative just isn't that smart to begin with?

dang 8y ago
Please don't foment flamewars on HN. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
stryk 8y ago
THIS is a not-insignificant part of the problem. right here. You jumped straight out of the gate with calling the OP stupid. Not even a feigned attempt at some sort of discussion or debate. You saw the word "conservative" and BOOM it's right into the Us vs. Them, Me vs. You, Good vs. Evil. I just don't see how that is healthy, at all, for anyone or anything including the country. It's childish. Social media and karma/upvotes/likes/karma/fake-internet-points, whatever you want to call it, has devolved us into kids on the schoolyard. United we stand, divided we fall. grow up
- ionised 8y ago
  I mean, if you look throughout history, even at the last century, you see civil rights actions that were vehemently opposed by conservatives and traditionalists. Votes for women, emancipation of slaves, equal rights for women, for blacks, for gays, for the transgendered, worker protections, abolition of child labour, mandatory paid leave, maternity leave, environmental protections etc. The list could go on, and in each and every instance we have had conservatives and traditionalists fighting them tooth and nail, and losing the battle every single time. While the comment the person you replied to is short and lacking in substance, I do think there is truth to it. What's that old Buddhist maxim? Change is the only constant in life or You cannot change the wind, but you can adjust your sails. Change is a certainty, but conservatives and traditionalists have made it their life's work to resist it.

didibus 8y ago

I find it reasonable, even somewhat logical, to label racists, sexists, homophobes, trans-phobes, immigrant-phobes, xenophobes, anti-semitists, islamophobes, etc. as monsters. Don't you? I'd be interested to hear why not? Personally, anyone who is actively seeking to enact hurtful policies against targeted individuals who have committed no crimes and shown no treat, in order to benefit themselves, could be logically qualified as a monster. An atrocity is defined as a cruel act. In that sense, if you support and encourage such acts, it seems appropriate to label you a monster. This has been true for most of history. At least with today's common morals, it seems to hold that historical act of cruelty are deemed as enacted by monsters. And marketing wise, republicans seem to have greatly associated themselves behind such people and policies. It's unfortunate if you fall in the camp only for everything else. Like say you just support gun rights, small governments and pro-life, because you truly believe that is best for everyone's livelihood, success, stability, prosperity, safety and happiness. Yet condemn and disagree firmly against acts of cruelty towards innocents. You might have people wondering why then you'd be willing to compromise one over the other, and question the truth of your condemnation.

mciancia 8y ago
Aaand that is just another example of what OP is talking about ;)
- didibus 8y ago
  Can you explain how so? I guess I'm putting forward two points: 1) Being a hateful person with a desire to oppress innocents seems to aptly qualify for the label of monster. 2) Those who equate republicans with monsters do so because of the republicans' current active support and promotion of hateful people and their desire to oppress the innocents. Nothing here seems unfair to me, or irrational. I feel it all simply follows. Oppressors are labeled as monsters, groups that are represented by oppressors and support oppression have their members labeled as monsters. The logical follow up, is that if you yourself are not supportive of oppression, then disassociate yourself with the groups that are? Join another group that represents yourself more accurately? Form a new group which represents yourself more accurately? Or attempt to change the group so it becomes more accurately representative of yourself? Why, if you are against the oppression, would you continue to support the group otherwise? There's only two reason I can think of. Because you're a partisan, and you just feel an irrational sense of belonging, like if it was a big family you are part of, and this is just the clan you belong too no matter what. Or because you are okay with the oppression put forward by the group if it means you also get X, Y, Z, etc. Where X, Y, Z are other policies like say banning abortion or maintaining gun rights.

cromwellian 8y ago

Depends on what Republicans you're talking about, the classic Buckley, Jack Kemp, Milton Friedman style of conservative, who you can have intellectual disagreements over economic policy about, or today's nationalist, xenophobic, cult-of-personality Republicans, which I'd call Trumplicans, who have abandoned everything classical liberals stood for (free trade, immigration, against crony capitalism) and now actively enable an administration that literally threatens to intervene in markets and pick winners or create losers. Or the people who burn their shoes and lose their minds every time someone (who is black) kneels at a football game. Those are the monsters.