9 ms·

Agreed. I think there are only two options for a company: 1) don't allow any activism in the company 2) allow ALL types of activism in the company Right now,

Agreed. I think there are only two options for a company: 1) don't allow any activism in the company 2) allow ALL types of activism in the company Right now, it seems most companies only allow liberal activism but not conservative activism. This is a recipe for problems because it's arbitrary and not democratic.

titanomachy 6y ago
Do companies have an obligation to be democratic? Are democratic companies common? Protected classes aside, if I start a company I can choose to hire or exclude whomever I choose. I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans, or only people who can't stand the taste of bananas. If this turns out to be a bad business decision (which it probably is), the market will punish me and I'll eventually lose to smarter competitors. Right?
- TedShiller 6y ago
  They do not have an obligation. However, employees will feel it is unfair if their side is not heard as much as the other side.
  - titanomachy 6y ago
    Agreed, being democratic seems to be generally a good practice for employers. Especially those that need to compete for talent.
- gnicholas 6y ago
  > I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans This might be illegal in California, which considers political activity to be a protected class.
  - titanomachy 6y ago
    I didn't realize that, you are likely correct! I could start such a company in my state, but I'd have to be very careful with jurisdictions. In practice most companies I'm familiar with have official policies banning political discrimination across the board, which makes sense considering the importance of California in tech.
- rdiddly 6y ago
  You can't discriminate against certain protected classes, but yes, it boggles my mind a little bit that someone could think "a corporation" is anything other than one of the most authoritarian, top-down governance structures ever devised.
  - CryptoPunk 6y ago
    If it's voluntarily formed, it's not authoritarian. When a political faction deems that those who refuse to pay half their income for a highly benevolent social program, will face punitive legal consequences, that is authoritarian. I only bring this up because I suspect you are in support of these kinds of programs.
    - webkike 6y ago
      It is voluntarily formed at the top, but in practice labor is a required aspect of life in a capitalist society. If there are only 10 companies and only one will hire you, with no capital you have zero choice but to work for that company.
      - CryptoPunk 6y ago
        Labor is required by nature, not by capitalism. I quote Frédéric Bastiat: Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy. One thing, however, remains - it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the State - that is, the Law itself.
- tomp 6y ago
  I actually find it quite curious that you’re not allowed to discriminate based on religion, but allowed to discriminate based on political views, throughout the West. One is a freely chosen personal belief, and the other is a freely chosen personal belief.
  - bigyikes 6y ago
    Actually, they’re different. People typically acquire one through indoctrination, and the other... Oh wait, you’re right.
lawnchair_larry 6y ago
It’s way worse than that. Even centrists and liberals are silenced by the vocal mob for merely questioning the validity of certain policies or initiatives that claim to have some righteous sounding goal, even when there is evidence that the proposed policy is more likely to be harmful than helpful. For example, it should not be controversial to debate the merits of Black Lives Matter, but since the alternate reality that certain people want to project doesn’t hold up well against facts and data, it’s easier just to brand you a racist (or whatever-ist, depending on the topic) instead. There is a ton of self-censorship and coercion by these activists asserting their supposed moral authority, which is not a good road to go down. In an industry full of data scientists and engineers, it amazes me how people go along with this narrative that disparate outcomes among members of arbitrary group identities is evidence of discrimination. We know that is not a valid application of statistics, yet people who know better still keep repeating it.
- 0xy 6y ago
  Not only will you be viciously attacked for questioning BLM, but an open source maintainer at Facebook was publicly attacked by coworkers for politely declining a request to put a BLM banner on the website for an open source project (he stated he wanted to remain apolitical, without giving an opinion). Social advocacy is a spiritual replacement to religion and supporters are even more fervent.
- webkike 6y ago
  I always find it curious that some people find BLM as something by which the merits of are debatable. What’s there to debate?
  - lawnchair_larry 6y ago
    THIS is why it’s so insidious. BLM is a well funded political organization with self-described marxist founders. It has about as much to do with black lives as the Nazi party had to do with “national socialism”. Nobody thinks black lives don’t matter. This is very different from supporting BLM, however. Many prominent black public figures have come out denouncing BLM, and it isn’t because they think their own lives don’t matter. The name is purely orwellian PR trickery that you can’t argue with, just like “antifa” is. It’s a remarkably effective tactic because most people assume it just means what the words say.
wonnage 6y ago
Most conservative activism is just...wrong
- TedShiller 6y ago
  That's what liberals say. Conservatives will say the opposite. Hence you need both or neither, or someone will be unhappy.
  - wonnage 6y ago
    conservatives are more interested in staying on power over actually being right about anything though, it's a fact
    - TedShiller 6y ago
      Why is it a fact? I'm independent, so I usually let the other two sides battle it out among themselves, while I stand by and am usually quite impressed by the sophisticated and clever arguments going both ways. I have yet to be swayed either way. Still, it's interesting! In a way it's an optimization. My hope is that one day, when the two sides have finally come to a conclusion as to which one is right, I can join that one, and save myself a lot of trouble in the meantime ;)

titanomachy 6y ago

Do companies have an obligation to be democratic? Are democratic companies common? Protected classes aside, if I start a company I can choose to hire or exclude whomever I choose. I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans, or only people who can't stand the taste of bananas. If this turns out to be a bad business decision (which it probably is), the market will punish me and I'll eventually lose to smarter competitors. Right?

TedShiller 6y ago
They do not have an obligation. However, employees will feel it is unfair if their side is not heard as much as the other side.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  Agreed, being democratic seems to be generally a good practice for employers. Especially those that need to compete for talent.
gnicholas 6y ago
> I could start a company that only hires registered Republicans This might be illegal in California, which considers political activity to be a protected class.
- titanomachy 6y ago
  I didn't realize that, you are likely correct! I could start such a company in my state, but I'd have to be very careful with jurisdictions. In practice most companies I'm familiar with have official policies banning political discrimination across the board, which makes sense considering the importance of California in tech.
rdiddly 6y ago
You can't discriminate against certain protected classes, but yes, it boggles my mind a little bit that someone could think "a corporation" is anything other than one of the most authoritarian, top-down governance structures ever devised.
- CryptoPunk 6y ago
  If it's voluntarily formed, it's not authoritarian. When a political faction deems that those who refuse to pay half their income for a highly benevolent social program, will face punitive legal consequences, that is authoritarian. I only bring this up because I suspect you are in support of these kinds of programs.
  - webkike 6y ago
    It is voluntarily formed at the top, but in practice labor is a required aspect of life in a capitalist society. If there are only 10 companies and only one will hire you, with no capital you have zero choice but to work for that company.
    - CryptoPunk 6y ago
      Labor is required by nature, not by capitalism. I quote Frédéric Bastiat: Man recoils from trouble, from suffering; and yet he is condemned by nature to the suffering of privation, if he does not take the trouble to work. He has to choose, then, between these two evils. What means can he adopt to avoid both? There remains now, and there will remain, only one way, which is, to enjoy the labor of others. Such a course of conduct prevents the trouble and the satisfaction from preserving their natural proportion, and causes all the trouble to become the lot of one set of persons, and all the satisfaction that of another. This is the origin of slavery and of plunder, whatever its form may be - whether that of wars, imposition, violence, restrictions, frauds, etc. - monstrous abuses, but consistent with the thought which has given them birth. Oppressors should be detested and resisted - they can hardly be called absurd. Slavery is disappearing, thank heaven! and, on the other hand, our disposition to defend our property prevents direct and open plunder from being easy. One thing, however, remains - it is the original inclination which exists in all men to divide the lot of life into two parts, throwing the trouble upon others, and keeping the satisfaction for themselves. It remains to be shown under what new form this sad tendency is manifesting itself. The oppressor no longer acts directly and with his own powers upon his victim. No, our conscience has become too sensitive for that. The tyrant and his victim are still present, but there is an intermediate person between them, which is the State - that is, the Law itself.
tomp 6y ago
I actually find it quite curious that you’re not allowed to discriminate based on religion, but allowed to discriminate based on political views, throughout the West. One is a freely chosen personal belief, and the other is a freely chosen personal belief.
- bigyikes 6y ago
  Actually, they’re different. People typically acquire one through indoctrination, and the other... Oh wait, you’re right.

lawnchair_larry 6y ago

It’s way worse than that. Even centrists and liberals are silenced by the vocal mob for merely questioning the validity of certain policies or initiatives that claim to have some righteous sounding goal, even when there is evidence that the proposed policy is more likely to be harmful than helpful. For example, it should not be controversial to debate the merits of Black Lives Matter, but since the alternate reality that certain people want to project doesn’t hold up well against facts and data, it’s easier just to brand you a racist (or whatever-ist, depending on the topic) instead. There is a ton of self-censorship and coercion by these activists asserting their supposed moral authority, which is not a good road to go down. In an industry full of data scientists and engineers, it amazes me how people go along with this narrative that disparate outcomes among members of arbitrary group identities is evidence of discrimination. We know that is not a valid application of statistics, yet people who know better still keep repeating it.

0xy 6y ago
Not only will you be viciously attacked for questioning BLM, but an open source maintainer at Facebook was publicly attacked by coworkers for politely declining a request to put a BLM banner on the website for an open source project (he stated he wanted to remain apolitical, without giving an opinion). Social advocacy is a spiritual replacement to religion and supporters are even more fervent.
webkike 6y ago
I always find it curious that some people find BLM as something by which the merits of are debatable. What’s there to debate?
- lawnchair_larry 6y ago
  THIS is why it’s so insidious. BLM is a well funded political organization with self-described marxist founders. It has about as much to do with black lives as the Nazi party had to do with “national socialism”. Nobody thinks black lives don’t matter. This is very different from supporting BLM, however. Many prominent black public figures have come out denouncing BLM, and it isn’t because they think their own lives don’t matter. The name is purely orwellian PR trickery that you can’t argue with, just like “antifa” is. It’s a remarkably effective tactic because most people assume it just means what the words say.

wonnage 6y ago

Most conservative activism is just...wrong

TedShiller 6y ago
That's what liberals say. Conservatives will say the opposite. Hence you need both or neither, or someone will be unhappy.
- wonnage 6y ago
  conservatives are more interested in staying on power over actually being right about anything though, it's a fact
  - TedShiller 6y ago
    Why is it a fact? I'm independent, so I usually let the other two sides battle it out among themselves, while I stand by and am usually quite impressed by the sophisticated and clever arguments going both ways. I have yet to be swayed either way. Still, it's interesting! In a way it's an optimization. My hope is that one day, when the two sides have finally come to a conclusion as to which one is right, I can join that one, and save myself a lot of trouble in the meantime ;)