8 ms·

Yeah, this just isn't true. Plenty of fun to be had, plenty of candid perspective sharing, plenty of drinking with coworkers. If your coastal corp doesn't have

Yeah, this just isn't true. Plenty of fun to be had, plenty of candid perspective sharing, plenty of drinking with coworkers. If your coastal corp doesn't have these things, get out of there. And if you find yourself getting "cancelled" everywhere you go? Probably a personal problem.

gruez 6y ago
>And if you find yourself getting "cancelled" everywhere you go? Probably a personal problem. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the parent was constantly being canceled. The actual problem is that nobody wants to be canceled even once, so they're forced to be perpetually on their tippy toes. The recent cancellations[1] for (arguably) non-hateful behavior creates a chilling effect. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384
- shredprez 6y ago
  I'm not sure where you got the impression I got that impression. Simply pointing out the obvious: if you follow my advice to leave unhealthy work environments and find yourself facing repeated trouble, it's worth considering whether your own behavior is a factor. >The actual problem is that nobody wants to be canceled even once, so they're always perpetually on their tippy toes. This is how professional environments have always been and I don't agree that it's a problem. When a bunch of people with different beliefs get together its important for everyone to invest effort in keeping the peace so the focus can remain on work. Thankfully there's still plenty of room for sharing personal beliefs with coworkers (even differing opinions) as long as you've put in the work to build a trusting relationship.
- pavel_lishin 6y ago
  > The recent cancellations[1] for (arguably) non-hateful behavior creates a chilling effect. I guess it might depend on what sorts of things you're used to saying. I haven't felt chilled at work, and haven't felt any need to adjust my behavior or the things I say in any way. > One wrong word and you’re cancelled. I think many of those words have always been wrong, and it's only now that people are correctly catching flack for it, because people are willing to go to HR with their complaints.
  - branweb 6y ago
    I think there's some truth in what you say, but as a counterpoint, consider this essay Paul Graham wrote a few weeks back: http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html . Namely this part: The more conventional-minded someone is, the more it seems to them that it's safe for everyone to express their opinions. It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone.
    - halostatue 6y ago
      PG and the parent comment are saying the same thing. The problem is when the conventional-minded person becomes stuck in a convention that is no longer true. That doesn’t necessarily mean that said convention was _correct_, but that what _was_ conventional is no longer so. It used to be _conventional_ to have scantily clad “booth babes” in pretty much every technical conference’s vendor room (worse at things like CES, but I remember going to a mid-2000s VMworld conference where there were some booth babes). At some point—in part because of pushback against the sexism of “booth babes”—it became embarrassing to have them. I remember discussions on various sites (IIRC, including HN) where people lamented “feminism” for the disappearance of booth babes. Ultimately, the people who lamented it couldn’t keep up with the changes in convention. It used to be _conventional_ to be casually sexist or racist in the office. The convention changed. The people who are supposedly being “canceled” have been unable to keep up with the convention. It could be personal sexism and/or racism, or it could simply be systemic sexism and/or racism and they haven’t _quite_ caught the memo that the convention changed.
      - branweb 6y ago
        hmm maybe I've misunderstood the parent comment or the PG essay. I read them like this: Parent comment: I haven't felt censored, therefore there is no problem. PG essay: This isn't a good argument for the absence of censorship, since some people adopt their opinions wholesale from the dominant orthodoxy of their times, making it logically impossible for them to say anything heterodox. Such people would therefore never feel censored. Anyway, that's my take. How do you you see them as saying the same thing? I think the PG essay does talk about conventions changing, which you did a very good job of illustrating with your booth babe example...though in the essay, he seems more interested in good opiions that run counter to current conventions rather than bad ones that convention endorses (like booth babes).
- api 6y ago
  While I generally think more telework is a great thing for numerous reasons, the state of discourse makes me worried about people spending so much time online. The social media "hate laser" effect is I think the main force behind things like the kind of histrionic leftism you describe as well as the alt-right and fellow traveler movements. Social media rewards that kind of extreme polarizing content as it drives "engagement," and everyone is losing their damn mind.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    "Hate laser" is brilliant. It's a stimulated emission of hate. To go one step further: For a laser to work requires some kind of pumping, in order to get the atoms in a state where they can emit. By analogy, what "pumps" the hate laser? Trolls do. Nuff said on that topic; we've all seen it. Foreign governments do. The point of "agitation propaganda" is to get the population in an agitated state, that is, a state where they are ready to lash out. I think there is sufficient evidence of Russia doing this, and I suspect that both China and Iran are doing so also. Domestic political parties do. "The other side is not just wrong, they're evil. Here, look how evil they are! Look what horrible things they're doing! Send us money so that we can fight them!" And the media do. Especially social media, but the regular media as well. Outrage drives clicks, clicks sell ads, ads make money. (Alternately, media could be thought of as turning up the gain on the other forms of pumping.)
pandaman 6y ago
In my coastal corporation you can totally share how much you hate Trump, make jokes how the Republicans are the American Taliban and whatever else you've heard from John Oliver and even raise money for organizations whose stated goal is to destroy American way of life, so if these are things that appeal to you - you won't notice that other perspectives may not be as welcome.
- pcbro141 6y ago
  That's because a lot of the things Trump does like tweeting his supporters screaming "white power" are objectively bad things which most conservatives and liberals would agree are reprehensible. Of course it's socially acceptable to condemn racism.
- arbitrary_name 6y ago
  Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is objectively bad. I will shit on his actions and policies openly, knowing that (for example) the only people who were really invested in keeping confederate statues in place are hiding some deeply distasteful views and should be flushed out.
  - rainyMammoth 6y ago
    This strikes me as extremely simplistic. So you want to "flush out" about 50% of the American electorate? Don't you think there are some nuances there? You realize that there are non-coastal corporation that are the exact opposite and they believe as strongly as you that people like you must be "flushed out" ? America is in trouble...
    - adamsea 6y ago
      1. 50% of the voting electorate did not vote for Trump. 2. The parent post said "flush out the views", not flush out the people.
      - adamsea 6y ago
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
djsumdog 6y ago
Your opinions probably align with everyone's (see Paul Graham's recent post on Orthodoxy Privilege). I hate online happy hour because there's some person who's going to try to talk about politics and won't take the cues to shut that shit down. It's incredibly dangerous to talk about anything remotely controversial at work right now, if you're in 100% remote/lockdown work. I've heard this from multiple non-work friends. I personally avoid it whenever possible. Hell, it's not even work friends. I know people who have completely stopped texting each other over narrow political views.
- pojzon 6y ago
  Its nothing wrong in looking for „friends” at work, but its rarely a good idea in the long run for most. Current modern world and its problems can get to you and rot at work also. Its very hard „not to” talk about some things.

gruez 6y ago

>And if you find yourself getting "cancelled" everywhere you go? Probably a personal problem. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the parent was constantly being canceled. The actual problem is that nobody wants to be canceled even once, so they're forced to be perpetually on their tippy toes. The recent cancellations[1] for (arguably) non-hateful behavior creates a chilling effect. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23635384

shredprez 6y ago
I'm not sure where you got the impression I got that impression. Simply pointing out the obvious: if you follow my advice to leave unhealthy work environments and find yourself facing repeated trouble, it's worth considering whether your own behavior is a factor. >The actual problem is that nobody wants to be canceled even once, so they're always perpetually on their tippy toes. This is how professional environments have always been and I don't agree that it's a problem. When a bunch of people with different beliefs get together its important for everyone to invest effort in keeping the peace so the focus can remain on work. Thankfully there's still plenty of room for sharing personal beliefs with coworkers (even differing opinions) as long as you've put in the work to build a trusting relationship.
pavel_lishin 6y ago
> The recent cancellations[1] for (arguably) non-hateful behavior creates a chilling effect. I guess it might depend on what sorts of things you're used to saying. I haven't felt chilled at work, and haven't felt any need to adjust my behavior or the things I say in any way. > One wrong word and you’re cancelled. I think many of those words have always been wrong, and it's only now that people are correctly catching flack for it, because people are willing to go to HR with their complaints.
- branweb 6y ago
  I think there's some truth in what you say, but as a counterpoint, consider this essay Paul Graham wrote a few weeks back: http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/orth.html . Namely this part: The more conventional-minded someone is, the more it seems to them that it's safe for everyone to express their opinions. It's safe for them to express their opinions, because the source of their opinions is whatever it's currently acceptable to believe. So it seems to them that it must be safe for everyone.
  - halostatue 6y ago
    PG and the parent comment are saying the same thing. The problem is when the conventional-minded person becomes stuck in a convention that is no longer true. That doesn’t necessarily mean that said convention was _correct_, but that what _was_ conventional is no longer so. It used to be _conventional_ to have scantily clad “booth babes” in pretty much every technical conference’s vendor room (worse at things like CES, but I remember going to a mid-2000s VMworld conference where there were some booth babes). At some point—in part because of pushback against the sexism of “booth babes”—it became embarrassing to have them. I remember discussions on various sites (IIRC, including HN) where people lamented “feminism” for the disappearance of booth babes. Ultimately, the people who lamented it couldn’t keep up with the changes in convention. It used to be _conventional_ to be casually sexist or racist in the office. The convention changed. The people who are supposedly being “canceled” have been unable to keep up with the convention. It could be personal sexism and/or racism, or it could simply be systemic sexism and/or racism and they haven’t _quite_ caught the memo that the convention changed.
    - branweb 6y ago
      hmm maybe I've misunderstood the parent comment or the PG essay. I read them like this: Parent comment: I haven't felt censored, therefore there is no problem. PG essay: This isn't a good argument for the absence of censorship, since some people adopt their opinions wholesale from the dominant orthodoxy of their times, making it logically impossible for them to say anything heterodox. Such people would therefore never feel censored. Anyway, that's my take. How do you you see them as saying the same thing? I think the PG essay does talk about conventions changing, which you did a very good job of illustrating with your booth babe example...though in the essay, he seems more interested in good opiions that run counter to current conventions rather than bad ones that convention endorses (like booth babes).
api 6y ago
While I generally think more telework is a great thing for numerous reasons, the state of discourse makes me worried about people spending so much time online. The social media "hate laser" effect is I think the main force behind things like the kind of histrionic leftism you describe as well as the alt-right and fellow traveler movements. Social media rewards that kind of extreme polarizing content as it drives "engagement," and everyone is losing their damn mind.
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  "Hate laser" is brilliant. It's a stimulated emission of hate. To go one step further: For a laser to work requires some kind of pumping, in order to get the atoms in a state where they can emit. By analogy, what "pumps" the hate laser? Trolls do. Nuff said on that topic; we've all seen it. Foreign governments do. The point of "agitation propaganda" is to get the population in an agitated state, that is, a state where they are ready to lash out. I think there is sufficient evidence of Russia doing this, and I suspect that both China and Iran are doing so also. Domestic political parties do. "The other side is not just wrong, they're evil. Here, look how evil they are! Look what horrible things they're doing! Send us money so that we can fight them!" And the media do. Especially social media, but the regular media as well. Outrage drives clicks, clicks sell ads, ads make money. (Alternately, media could be thought of as turning up the gain on the other forms of pumping.)

pandaman 6y ago

In my coastal corporation you can totally share how much you hate Trump, make jokes how the Republicans are the American Taliban and whatever else you've heard from John Oliver and even raise money for organizations whose stated goal is to destroy American way of life, so if these are things that appeal to you - you won't notice that other perspectives may not be as welcome.

pcbro141 6y ago
That's because a lot of the things Trump does like tweeting his supporters screaming "white power" are objectively bad things which most conservatives and liberals would agree are reprehensible. Of course it's socially acceptable to condemn racism.
arbitrary_name 6y ago
Yes, because much of what trump is criticized for is objectively bad. I will shit on his actions and policies openly, knowing that (for example) the only people who were really invested in keeping confederate statues in place are hiding some deeply distasteful views and should be flushed out.
- rainyMammoth 6y ago
  This strikes me as extremely simplistic. So you want to "flush out" about 50% of the American electorate? Don't you think there are some nuances there? You realize that there are non-coastal corporation that are the exact opposite and they believe as strongly as you that people like you must be "flushed out" ? America is in trouble...
  - adamsea 6y ago
    1. 50% of the voting electorate did not vote for Trump. 2. The parent post said "flush out the views", not flush out the people.
    - adamsea 6y ago

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

djsumdog 6y ago

Your opinions probably align with everyone's (see Paul Graham's recent post on Orthodoxy Privilege). I hate online happy hour because there's some person who's going to try to talk about politics and won't take the cues to shut that shit down. It's incredibly dangerous to talk about anything remotely controversial at work right now, if you're in 100% remote/lockdown work. I've heard this from multiple non-work friends. I personally avoid it whenever possible. Hell, it's not even work friends. I know people who have completely stopped texting each other over narrow political views.

pojzon 6y ago
Its nothing wrong in looking for „friends” at work, but its rarely a good idea in the long run for most. Current modern world and its problems can get to you and rot at work also. Its very hard „not to” talk about some things.