26 ms·

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I consider

I consider myself a very politically informed person. I'm not a politically active person however, largely for the reasons mentioned in the article. I considered myself a liberal by the standards of the time I grew up in. My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. I am one of the people the article is concerning who will not publicly voice their political opinions in the workplace for fear of potential repercussions. One thing that particularly upsets me, is how willingly other people bring up politically sensitive issues in the workplace. I regularly hear woefully uninformed diatribes on geopolitics and American domestic politics (I do not live in America) in the workplace. Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. As a result, I do not enter into such discussions. I feel as though I am more open-minded than many others. I am always ready to be corrected if I am wrong, and I am always willing to discuss my views with people subscribing to other political ideologies. However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind. I also feel as though many politically active people are not acting in good faith. I feel that the safest option I will not regret is not to engage.

shkkmo 5y ago
I think one aspect of Polarization in the US is that a big part of it is our expectations of polarization. I think we strongly overestimate the degree to which we can predict someone's political views and world outlook from a single statement. I am worried we are in a positive feedback were perceptions of polarization lead to self-censorship among the less polarized, which further drives the perceptions of polarization.
- andromeduck 5y ago
  Worse yet, the language gets so abstract and contorted it becomes hard to find areas where there is strong consensus matter of practice. We can't agree on concrete policies because people can't agree on why something shoud be done and not how. And even when there exists consensus for both for some subset everyone wants to use it as leverage to get their entire position so we end up with more status quo. You see this with Republicans and Obamacare, as well as the DSA crowd and Medicare expansions proposed by Warren/Clinton/Butti.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
pasabagi 5y ago
> My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. By who? Rosa Luxembourg, for example, was a free speech fundamentalist, and she is still far left of many left wingers today. Free speech is a value that is often adopted, nuanced, and discarded by political projects from all over the spectrum - and it's naive to think that one side of the spectrum has a monopoly on its defense or denigration.
- arka2147483647 5y ago
  In princible, the progressive left supports free speach. In practice, disagreement is met with explanations and accusations of ”shifting overton window”, ”new normal” and ”normalization”. Meaning that, Yes, you do have the right of free speach, but No, you should not be saying the wrong things.
  - samsari 5y ago
    Just because I support your right to say it doesn't mean I have to celebrate what you say, or why you said it.
    - efaref 5y ago
      This is exactly the problem. "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has been replaced with "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". The latter is, of course, utter nonsense. Repercussions or retaliation for expressing wrongthink is the literal definition of a place that does not have freedom of speech.
      - msg3 5y ago
        I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about the sort of society we want to live in - do we want to promote open discussion, even if it can be divisive? But I don't think it's really a rights issue unless the consequences progress from social / economic to legal.
lifeisstillgood 5y ago
Would you feel more comfortable in a company that openly encouraged / enforced political debate within a civil framework? Is the problem (in your company and the world at large) that open respectful political debate has not got a common set of rules / words? If there was a phrase "I respectfully disagree - I understand that ..." was a phrase used by every TV host, Politician and Facebook poster, would prefacing your words with that make others more open to receiving it?
- secondcoming 5y ago
  Political debate used to have rules. Take this [0] debate between William F Buckley and Noam Chomsky about the Vietman War, for example. The two clearly detested each other but the debate was mostly civil. Christopher Hitchens' debate are others worth watching. Does these even happen any more in MSM? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss
  - amalcon 5y ago
    Western society seems to have gotten the idea that "debate" is either talking heads trying to shout over each other, presenting prepared arguments to random unprepared people and claiming victory when it takes time to respond, or simply presenting opinions back and forth without trying to justify them. This is tied to the (independent but both incorrect) notions that whoever has the last word in a debate is the winner, and whoever wins the debate is necessarily right. I think it would be valuable to somehow expose ordinary people to structured competitive debate, if only because it makes many of these falsehoods evident. This kind of debate uses the rules to select the positions of the parties and when they get to speak. Obviously the last speaker doesn't necessarily win, and the winner doesn't necessarily even believe their own position (so the debate doesn't prove that position right). Yet still, it's much better at educating people on the issues than any "debate" that most people have ever watched.
    - Digory 5y ago
      Unfortunately, structured competitive debate these days has gone off the rails. At least, college debate in the US has become ridiculous. Moot court and mock trial retain some semblance of argumentation. But you would have to reinvent the kind of formal debate you’re imagining.
dr_dshiv 5y ago
I would say that this is a failure of philosophy in political leadership. Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes. Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  > It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling. I was looking to put words on my feeling about this, and you did it perfectly. I was wondering why suddenly so many people voiced the same engaged opinion, while I know for having discussed with them in private settings that they don't think deeply about society. Now I realize that's because they want to look like they belong to a certain kind of people. It's not about ideas. It's about tribes.
  - DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
    > It's not about ideas. It's about tribes. wonder what percentage of our likelihood to survive depend on ensuring we still are part of the tribe (e.g. signalling)? I think all communication other than the functional coordination of mundane things (can you pick the kids up today? how much for X etc) would fall into that category. Why otherwise bother with any of it at all? It seems there is perhaps a relation between the amount of tribalism and uncertainty in life people face? It's easier to take risks and care about art and talk about very complex topics in a distanced way with people from opposing views when we're not in the thick of it?
    - circlefavshape 5y ago
      In my more pessimistic moments I find myself moving towards the same conclusion. The vast majority of communication between people seems, at its root, to simply be sorting of in-group from out-group
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
read_if_gay_ 5y ago
Engaging in real-life political discussions in the current climate is basically all risk, zero reward.
- yerwhat01010 5y ago
  Only if you have "incorrect" opinions.
  - ForHackernews 5y ago
    There's not a lot of reward even for the bien pensant.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - secondcoming 5y ago
    And of course a 'correct' opinion today might be 'incorrect' tomorrow and since you've previously expressed the 'now incorrect' opinion you can be in trouble. Just delete your Twitter account and say nothing to anyone about anything, especially in the workplace.
- oblio 5y ago
  From what I remember, in polite circles it was always known that you should never discuss politics and religion with anyone except your immediate family and close friends.
  - the-smug-one 5y ago
    "The Fall of Public Man" argues that we actually used to be more political and had to "put our cards on the table" so to speak. This would be as opposed to now, where we are very much able to hide our positions if we so please. I don't know what polite circles would be, but I suppose some sort of aristocracy? Certainly gentile society in 1780s in France were not scared of expressing heavy political discourse in public. Nor were the rich Romans. Edit: And just to be clear. Rich people may perhaps only speak politics with their closest friends, but they certainly act politically with the use of their capital. Imitating them by shutting up has no point and is detrimental to a democratic society.
jb775 5y ago
> how willingly other people bring up politically sensitive issues in the workplace I'd say I'm a mix of conservative/Libertarian and this kind of blows my mind over the past few years. It seems like I constantly hear people on the left openly voicing their political opinions around crowds of people, and always speak in a way that they genuinely believe everyone around them agrees....and often have a condescending way of saying it. It amazes me how they seem to have absolutely no idea where the right-wing people are even coming from. I think this recent over-confidence is mostly due to them not realizing the major media outlets are essentially feeding them communist propaganda (if you don't agree with this I'd consider researching cognitive dissonance). I experience this on a regular basis, and it usually leads to me completely losing respect for that person purely due to the lack of awareness that person is showing. The other dynamic, and what the leftists don't realize (or can't process), is that the left's arguments are primarily things that sound good in practice, but don't add up in theory. It always sounds good when someone says they want to help someone else, no matter who says it. This allows them to go crazy in public giving one liners about the surface level of their political policies ("everyone should have world class health care!", "everyone should have lots of money!", "No one should ever shoot someone else with a gun!"...all because they sound good (even to conservatives). Conservative policies take a bit more explaining to get their point across, and are much more focused on the logical and realistic side of things. No one likes to say "someone who doesn't work and doesn't contribute to society doesn't deserve govt handouts"...but it makes logical sense. That kind of talk doesn't exactly sound as good around the water cooler. Also, the time horizon for conservative viewpoints is often much longer (think about generations in the future and the impact today's decisions will have down the road). Compared to the left's policies that solve shallow issues today while mortgaging the well-being of future generations. The simple fact is that conservatives have an easier time seeing where the left is coming from as a result of the left's primary policies being shallower and less thought out. These aspects also make it easier for the left to create snarky comments around. Conservatives however, simply don't agree and think it's all a pipe dream. They see the shallowness that the left is not able to. The left on the other hand, not only doesn't understand the right's overarching viewpoints...they also aren't even willing to try to understand where the right is coming from.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
yerwhat01010 5y ago
> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This is so true. I've seen polling showing that large numbers of people believe that the number of unarmed black men fatally shot by American police every year is in the "thousands" or even "tens of thousands". And the further to the left the media people consume, the higher they're likely to believe the number is. The actual number of unarmed black men shot dead by American police in 2019 is thirteen. Regardless of what you think about racism and police violence, this is a fact. People who think that "thousands" of unarmed black men are killed by police every year are not only numerous, they are wrong - so absurdly, wildly wrong by so many orders of magnitude that if you tell tell me that the number is in the thousands, I'm going to assume you're deeply uninformed on many other things, not just this one number. Yet in the current climate I'd be afraid to even correct people on this enormous, inarguable factual innaccuracy. (And good luck explaining to people that "unarmed" isn't synonymous with "innocent" - you can be unarmed and still give a cop a good reason to shoot you, for example by attacking the cop with your fists.) Is it really too much to ask that we leave this stuff out of the workplace?
- BiteCode_dev 5y ago
  I upvoted you because I don't think you should be downvoted for expressing your opinion. But I also think we should wonder: how many white armed men were killed?
  - yerwhat01010 5y ago
    Did I express an opinion? I'm pretty sure I just quoted a statistic. But since you asked: American police kill white men (including unarmed white men) at the same rate at which they kill black men, once you control for crime rate and poverty. But police killings of white men don't become national news. Tony Timpa died in near-identical circumstances to George Floyd. Ask yourself why you haven't heard of him. Or Ryan Whitaker, or Daniel Shaver. (Does the overrepresentation of black men among criminals and the poor have anything to do with racism? Obviously it does, and I'm happy to discuss it in good faith. But I've probably derailed the thread enough already.)
switch007 5y ago
> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This resonates deeply. I'm at the point where "I'm entitled to my opinion!" is a great signal to change the topic, never to return to the topic of politics with that person ever again
- Closi 5y ago
  I think that might be a signal that you have already gone too far into the convo too!
  - xupybd 5y ago
    It's a shame if that's the case some of my favorite discussions have been with people tht disagree with me. I hope we haven't lost the ability to have a disagreement and remain friends.
    - justaman 5y ago
      I think its precisely those who can disagree and remain friends that are the people worth maintaining a friendship with. All others are a lower class of acquaintance.
- justaman 5y ago
  When someone comes at me with "I'm entitled to my opinion!" I reply, "You're entitled to your INFORMED opinion!". I think since around 2008 with the rise of social media, so much of one's ego has been made public. More so than ever before. Its as if everyone is a public figure. Because of this, more people are incapable of accepting that they may be wrong, underinformed, or simply misinformed.
  - tomjen3 5y ago
    The problem with that is the question becomes who determines what is informed? It wasn't that long ago that informed people were being made fun of because they where avoiding handshakes despite the CDC not supporting it. Now both those who support and those who disagree with masks think they are the informed party. I have disagreed with the reopening plan for my country, based on the science as I understand it (they didn't open up enough outside) and it now looks like I was right. So the question is, who and how do you determine what constitute an informed opinion?
youngtaff 5y ago
Looking at UK politics… It's funny how people who are conservative claim their right to free speech is being curtailed when at the same time they're busy curtailing the rights of people who aren't like them - immigrants, non-Cis, non-white people, climate change protesters etc. Oh and let's not forget that the conservatives in the UK branded the likely implications of Brexit as “project fear”
- textgel 5y ago
  Which rights are they curtailing and how are they doing it?
  - youngtaff 5y ago
    Laws that affect right to protest such as the one that's currently proceeding through parliament. Anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-trans columns in papers like Telegraph, Mail etc.
    - nec4b 5y ago
      Could you be more specific, maybe link to some examples?
      - youngtaff 5y ago
        Search Google for the Right to Protest legislation Go read the stories about JKRowling and others view on trans people, and the editorials about it
        nec4b 5y ago
        > Search Google for the Right to Protest legislation There is nothing in there as far as i can see specifically targeting leftist protestors, it seem to be written for any kind of protests, even non political. Are only leftist protests in the UK noisy, violent and disruptive? >Go read the stories about JKRowling and others view on trans people, and the editorials about it As far as I know she considers herself a feminist and a liberal and has actively supported feminist causes. I don't know what she has to do with the conservatives and I don't know which rights she is taking away from trans people or how can she even do that.
heresie-dabord 5y ago
> correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense This is modern anti-culture. It's a climate where "opinions" matter more than knowledge and consumerism matters more than democracy. There are many employers. I am an employee, but I am first and foremost a citizen in a Democracy... If I have the courage to defend it and the will to learn/educate. An educational system worth the title should provide understanding of society and democracy.
- christophilus 5y ago
  I’d say it’s where only mainstream opinions matter, and all else is heresy punishable by fire.
- giantg2 5y ago
  "It's a climate where 'opinions' matter more than knowledge..." It's not just that. Sometimes the people don't understand the difference between their opinion and facts. Like I could point out some factual incorrectness and they see me as attacking their opinion. A lot of the time they coincidence, but sometimes I might be in favor of their opinion based on other facts and simply don't want misinformation to spread. Or we might share the same objective but that false information would lead to a flawed implementation that would block us from achieving a shared goal. Not to mention, I try not to attack an actual opinion, because everyone is entitled to one, even if it differs from mine.
- eplanit 5y ago
  This is why employers want to survey applicants' social media posts, to filter out those with activist views like this.
- catpatter 5y ago
  "There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov
kypro 5y ago
I have a few (really lovely) conservative friends who have expressed to me that they feel they can't express their political opinions outside of close friends and family because of the social risks involved with doing so. While I hold some "controversial" political opinions they're mostly related to fiscal policy rather than social policy so I've never personally felt like I couldn't express myself if I wanted to -- although I prefer not discussing politics in work environments. However, last year I decided to start promoting conservative views I don't necessarily agree with that my friends hold to see what the consequences of this would be. I think people would be surprised at how open most people are to be honest. I've expressed conservative views on immigration, trans-rights and Trump as if they were my own and had very little push back outside of Twitter. I can contrast this with the fact that I've seen some people over the last few years express left-wing positions at work and have had at least equal push back. I especially remember one guy who expressed how he felt we should remove statues of historical figures who did things we wouldn't approve of today and got a very strong negative reaction in my office. I wonder if the real problem here is that people who are conservatively minded are just naturally less comfortable with social conflict. I know my progressive friends are in all regards much more opinionated and seem far more comfortable with conflict, where as my conservative friends tend to be the types of people who avoid conflict. Perhaps it's an age thing too. Older people who are generally more conservative and perhaps also less interested in getting into a heated debates on Twitter or in the office about some slightly controversial political position they hold. This difference in willingness to enter into social conflict may explain why conservatives feel they are in a minority despite making up about 50% of the population. All I can say to those who feel oppressed is that as a bullied kid something I learnt from a young age is that it's hard to look myself in the mirror if I start trying to adapt my behaviour to please others. I much rather be myself and hated than try to conform at the expense of my identity. Be proud of who you are and never feel afraid to express yourself. If you're hated for that, so be it. It's better to be yourself than a coward.
- hanselot 5y ago
  It just takes one person to take offense to something for your life to be ruined. It is not worth the risk talking to anyone about anything remotely "honest" unless you have known them for years and know how they will react. This is a catch-22 because to really trust someone you have to be willing to talk to them (which kind of makes it moot to begin with, right?) Even now I find myself curbing my opinion strongly based on which words have been weaponized with malicious connotation, lets not discuss which 'truth-telling business' could be seen as responsible for this. Lets not discuss the other points which are too numerous to start on, and too political for the likes of this conversation. We could touch on the destruction of Western Academia as a point of origin for all this, we could muse on the comparable style of current social interaction to how things are depicted in 1984, or Communist Russia, but based on the keywords I already dropped, there is surely a large enough group of bots available to run this into the ground. These are all my opinions, none of it is considered some unchangable, unalterable worldview, and I don't believe you can engage critically with anyone if you are not willing to compromise. That being said, compromise comes from both sides, and one side is way better at yelling racist, sexist, misogynist, whenever the bargaining starts.
Underqualified 5y ago
One thing I read recently which seemed weird at first but has made me really consider a lot of things about current culture differently: "Taking offence is an act of aggression"
- amalcon 5y ago
  I don't mean to pick on you a bit here, but this feels like a good place to express something I've been having trouble with. My parents raised me to do my best to neither take nor give offense. Most of my peers as a child were taught the same way. Obviously we're not Vulcans; We will sometimes inadvertently give offense, or respond emotionally to something that may have been meant innocuously. Yet so much of what I see in public discourse is reveling in both sides of that equation: deliberately trying to provoke emotional reactions from others, intentionally adhering to uncharitable interpretations of others' statements even after they have explained themselves, and celebrating the drama resulting from these things. Civil discourse simply cannot function if this is a substantial part of pubic culture. There is no way to have a productive discussion if even one of the parties is deliberately provoking an emotional response. There is no way to have a productive discussion if even one of the parties is deliberately misinterpreting another in order to justify their own emotional response. Yet the dominant forms of public discourse these days include heavy doses of both of these things.
  - vixen99 5y ago
    Pubic culture? Should that be flagged?
    - amalcon 5y ago
      Oops, that's not a great typo. It's too late to edit, though.
  - f1refly 5y ago
    I think it just looks like this, mostly becuase of twitter. I've never seen anyone in real live interpret a statement in the most offensive way imaginable and not accept correction nor explanation. The chilling effect is undeniably though.
Tycho 5y ago
Lot of advice floating about the workplace these days along the lines of be candid, join the conversation, bring your whole self to work, etc. The people giving this advice seem to have no conception that not everyone actively engaged in these topics is acting in 100% good faith. Being too open could so easily backfire. Encouraging this is borderline negligent. Indeed there’s entire branches of activism that rest on bad-faith ideologies. Good advice would be to avoid controversial and political discussions and to keep a strong separation between your private life and your work life. Instead, we have employers, especially universities, asking staff to promote their organisations through their personal social media accounts.
- blueflow 5y ago
  I never got what people mean with "bad faith" stuff. Like its some inherently bad kind of behaviors and ideas? Can you explain it to me like im 5? The worst that i can think of is that people are hiding their true interests and thus lying to you.
  - arkh 5y ago
    They want ammo on everyone so they can try and get them fired to replace them with friends and family.
  - throwaway894345 5y ago
    The idea is that people are engaging with no interest in making society better. An example might be a person who advocates for policies that are almost certainly harmful to the communities he purports to care about because his rhetoric draws favor (i.e., social capital) from others of his well-to-do segment of the political spectrum. The chief idea is that someone is plainly not interested in addressing the problem they purport to care about, but that they want the benefits of virtue signaling or else the “politics as tribal sport” element or a fondness for malice and divisiveness. To be really clear, I’m not making a veiled political statement—I can think of a dozen ways this could fit a bad faith person on either side of the spectrum.
    - deleted 5y ago
js8 5y ago
I believe that liberalism and conservativism concern different values, liberalism is about personal freedom (like freedom of speech), while conservativism is about preserving the existing values in the society. It's quite normal as we grow up we become more conservative, especially successful people - we want to continue the success that was based on values we grew up with. That's why conservativism is associated with belief in authority - you need authority to enforce the values of the past. So when you grew up, you perceived freedom of speech as a good value because it meant freedom, and now you perceive it as a good value because it was there when you grew up. However, liberals moved on, and found other issues that concern human freedom, which were neglected before. So for instance, there is freedom to have a different sexual orientation, and be able to express it. Conservatives disagree with that value because it simply wasn't part of our culture in the past. (Progressives - or perhaps socialists would be more fitting name - are based on another value, namely inclusion in the community. They are distinct from liberals.)
- zozbot234 5y ago
  Libertarians have always been favorable to "the freedom to have a different sexual orientation"; it's not a "new" issue that was only discovered recently. However, conservatives and libertarians have always known that the freedom to live one's life as one desires can never extend beyond the point where others' freedoms are curtailed. Otherwise it's not actual freedom, but mere licence.
  - Loughla 5y ago
    I don't understand what you're saying here. Please explain. Are the first sentence and the second sentence connected? If so, I am lost.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      It's hard to answer because I'm not sure what you're asking, or why you are confused. The first and second sentence are describing libertarians' understanding of freedom as a value, and how this connects with "preserving existing values" to use GP's phrasing. It's quite wrong to say that sexual orientation "was not part of our culture in the past", as GP contends (unless you mean a quite remote past). If anything, it was understood in a far more nuanced way that always involved tolerance for others' orientations and value systems.
hilbert42 5y ago
"However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind." You're dead right and it's damned terrible. I long for both formal and informal debates on many topics but without my opponents becoming annoyed or offended (as so often they do nowadays). These days it seems almost impossible to debate any subject without upsetting someone. I now long for the type of television programs that I remember from my youth—talking heads discussing and debating serious topics. For instance, I remember Bertrand Russell, Malcolm Muggeridge and A.J.P. Taylor and many others and it was wonderful and exciting television. What so many people fail to realize these days is that one can learn so much from discussions and debates of this kind. Incidentally, such discussions always remind me of the wonderful formal debate between Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus in Book One of Plato's Republic on the topic of justice. It's so good that every time I read it, it sends shivers of excitement down my back.
- signal11 5y ago
  About TV debates — A lot of these have moved to podcasts and YouTube these days. Eg the Oxford Union debates on YouTube, some of which are quite popular. I suspect some talk radio, eg PBS and BBC Radio 4, will also have interesting debates. Radio 4’s magazine programmes like The Life Scientific, In Our Time, The Public Philosopher, Reith Lectures etc certainly make for extremely interesting listening.
  - hilbert42 5y ago
    I know, thanks, they're great. Recently I've seen quite a few. Only several days ago I watched for the first time in many decades the program about A.J.P. Taylor and his controversial 1961 book The Origins of The Second World War (which, incidentally I have a copy of). You're right, we really need to spread the word at every opportunity.
  - throwaways885 5y ago
    But this is precisely a problem because of the demonetization that occurs on anything sensitive. These podcasts can't easily sustain themselves on a platform that actively de-ranks their content.
anovikov 5y ago
I think in terms of politics, discussion today doesn't really matter and won't convince anyone. It's about identity, not opinions or facts, they don't really matter so when you are trying to argue with a conservative, he is right not to listen to you. They may know that their worldview is all wrong, and they aren't fighting for it because it's right, but because there's nothing in for them in the alternatives: they need to preserve their black-collar workplaces for as long as they can, ideally till they retire (so they reject global warming and other concepts that definitely threaten them), they need value of their houses to stay or increase, or again they will never be able to retire, so they reject any multi-unit housing, affordable or assisted housing etc projects, and so on and so forth. They don't fight for their conservative ideas because they think they are right, but because they have vested interest in them being upheld at least for a while. This is also why in Europe, politics is a lot less divisive. Because most people own nothing and have no vested interest in anything[sarc on], they are already on the hook of the Big State[sarc off]
Matrixik 5y ago
I would say exactly same is happening with health of human body or even how it's working. I simply stopped trying to correct others and talking at all about it. When people start conversing about it, I just shut up.
dustinmoris 5y ago
> I feel as though I am more open-minded than many others. I am always ready to be corrected if I am wrong, and I am always willing to discuss my views with people subscribing to other political ideologies. However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind. This is how every open and critically minded person feels nowadays. There is a clear line between two groups: 1. People who think the best way to learn, educate and explore other people's views is by having an open discussion, saying uncomfortable things and having an ear to be corrected and showing mutual respect. 2. People who think that saying something uncomfortable during a discussion is an act of offence itself and therefore must be muted even if it takes some form of aggression by one or many people in order to mute that person. A discourse is only allowed if people immediately subscribe to a specific ideological idea and people are not allowed to get to that point through saying or asking the wrong things but must somehow be born with those views or otherwise need to be extinguished by the mob. Unfortunately the 2. group is getting increasingly more violent and aggressive in their approach which makes the 1. group increasingly more aware that they are in fact in danger to just be themselves and learn about life through sometimes tough discourse or mistakes.
- ModernMech 5y ago
  So let me get this straight: one group is rational, open, and critically minded; while the other is irrational, violent, and aggressive. And people are clearly either in group 1 or group 2. Let me guess, you see yourself as belonging to group 1? If so, what a very convenient worldview you've constructed for yourself.
  - dustinmoris 5y ago
    Nah, let me sum it up for you: 1. Likes to talk and learn from talking 2. Likes to mute and preach
bjourne 5y ago
I'm also a politically informed person and, unlike you, I am politically active. What can I say? It's my hobby. People go skydiving on weekends, I engage in left-wing politics. But I'm quite afraid of the possible consequences. What if a prospective employer sees me handing out flyers? What would by colleagues think? Well-paid developer and activist, how does that even work? Aren't they all unemployed and living with their moms? Fact is, many people (certainly a large number of bosses, and those are the ones whose opinions matter) think that you can't work at a private bank if you think private banking shouldn't exist. At every workplace I've been at, liberal (as in right-wing) views have been omnipresent and shared widely. I've often had to bite my tongue. If your coworkers celebrate tax cuts because it gives them more money in their wallets you are a downer for expressing doubts on its consequences for society. Don't argue with people expressing anti-immigration views because you will be labeled a "virtue signaler". I have no problem working with people who do not share my views. I briefly worked with someone who was a member of a Nazi group once (he didn't know I knew). It worked fine.
- mrec 5y ago
  > liberal (as in right-wing) What the hell? These terms are in no way synonyms. You seem to be fairly extreme left, which is fine, but then labelling everyone to the right of you as "right-wing" is not a useful classification. "Left" and "right" are relative to the political centre, not to wherever you yourself happen to be.
  - mmmmmbop 5y ago
    Please consider the possibility that GP is from a different country than you are and that liberal may mean something different there. For example in Sweden, the Liberals are a party that "historically was positioned in the centre" but has since "positioned itself more towards the right". [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals_(Sweden)
    - Dma54rhs 5y ago
      Liberals in Europe in general are more right wing. Conservatives like big handouts like your liberals in America to stay in power.
SonOfThePlower 5y ago
The result is that world becomes more and more boring. No interesting discussion can take place. Environment becomes more toxic and it's mainly due to radicals who perceive everything as offensive and everybody who disagrees as "nazi" or "racist" or "-phobic".
- YinglingLight 5y ago
  "No interesting discussion can take place" quickly leads to "No meaningful discussion can take place".
- tstrimple 5y ago
  I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. It's not hyperbole or an exaggeration. We did have a rally with a bunch of white nationalists exercising their "free speech" to chant "The Jews will not replace us" and they ended up murdering someone there. We had a National Security Advisor to the President of the United States promoting replacement theory. There are countless other examples major and minor over the last 12 years. Just how much racism and bigotry has to be clearly and consistently demonstrated for the labels to stick?
  - fidesomnes 5y ago
    > I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. Except you call everyone Nazis or racists including Jews, blacks, and others (J. K. Rowling for a recent example) who would be considered disqualified from white ethno-nationalist movements.
    - HaggardFinical 5y ago
      Can you point to an example of anyone calling Just Kidding Rowling a nazi or a racist?
      - fidesomnes 5y ago
giantg2 5y ago
I've been one to speak my mind. I see myself as having been punished for it. I was doing work a grade or two above mine but was held back from promotion. So I didn't make senior developer on that team. Then I was even in jeopardy of losing my job over a statement I made (not vulgar, disrespectful, or anything) so I have to switch stacks a couple times to move out of a bad area of the company. I'm 9 years in and just a midlevel. My trust in the company and my desire to work hard for them are abysmal. "Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense." I was stupid enough to do this too. People were discussing the gender wage gap the way the TV reporters do - that a woman in the same job as a man, with all things equal, makes 80 cents on the dollar. So I brought up the BLS study that shows that the 80 cents number is about an aggregate comparison of all men and women in the workforce, and that the main driver of the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. I wouldn't be surprised if I get downvoted on here for this comment too.
- Loughla 5y ago
  Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument: >the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling argument against a gender pay gap, overall. Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. Anyway, any workplace that wouldn't let you have a conversation about this topic, in a respectful, non-bigoted way is maybe not a healthy place to work. The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases. I'm afraid employers take a hard line, because it's easy to slip into that ocean.
  - nostromo 5y ago
    > it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.
gameswithgo 5y ago
Whether there is legitimate fear of reprisal or not, work is not a good place to talk politics, religion, or any other topic that gets people emotional. Unless of course topic is relevant to your work!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
jcadam 5y ago
HR departments are also being given the false impression that their latest "initiatives" have near-universal support because they only hear words of praise from the usual politically outspoken set. Everyone else keeps their mouths shut. A large number of employees are in a "quiet seething" mode and are becoming increasingly disengaged from workplace culture (i.e., "I don't want to get to know any of you. I just want to do my work and clock out"). On the bright side, remote work helps with this.
AnimalMuppet 5y ago
Hmm. Seems like, in a political discussion/argument, the least open mind "wins", because they are the most impervious to evidence. But the consequence is that the other side becomes less open minded too. They've tried arguing with someone who Just. Will. Not. Listen, who Just. Will. Not. Think. And when they run into the same arguments from someone else, they are less likely to be willing to listen themselves. It's hard to stay open minded in the middle of this. It's a battle. There are areas I just don't want to talk about any more. So I guess I'm losing the battle, at least to some degree.
marrs 5y ago
I still speak my mind openly in the work place and invariably I find that most people are actually delighted when they realise they can have open conversations with me without fear of judgement. The vast majority of people are still entirely reasonable. Of course you never know if you’re going to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, but I don’t go to work to make friends and I certainly don’t go there to be intimidated by bullies. I can count the number of unreasonable people I’ve had to deal with on the knuckles of one finger and they all skulked away pretty quickly when they realised I was standing up to them. I’m not trying to downplay what you’re saying. I think there is a culture of fear and I think it’s been stoked deliberately to a certain extent, but I also think it’s a lie. Most of the people you work with are probably like you. That may also explain why you don’t notice them ;)
- nickalaso 5y ago
  And, let me guess, your political opinion could be largely quantified as being left of center?
  - marrs 5y ago
    I’d probably describe myself as in the centre, but who knows what that means anymore? I relate somewhat to the parent comment.

shkkmo 5y ago

I think one aspect of Polarization in the US is that a big part of it is our expectations of polarization. I think we strongly overestimate the degree to which we can predict someone's political views and world outlook from a single statement. I am worried we are in a positive feedback were perceptions of polarization lead to self-censorship among the less polarized, which further drives the perceptions of polarization.

andromeduck 5y ago
Worse yet, the language gets so abstract and contorted it becomes hard to find areas where there is strong consensus matter of practice. We can't agree on concrete policies because people can't agree on why something shoud be done and not how. And even when there exists consensus for both for some subset everyone wants to use it as leverage to get their entire position so we end up with more status quo. You see this with Republicans and Obamacare, as well as the DSA crowd and Medicare expansions proposed by Warren/Clinton/Butti.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

pasabagi 5y ago

> My views on some social issues, particularly 'free speech', are considered a conservative now. By who? Rosa Luxembourg, for example, was a free speech fundamentalist, and she is still far left of many left wingers today. Free speech is a value that is often adopted, nuanced, and discarded by political projects from all over the spectrum - and it's naive to think that one side of the spectrum has a monopoly on its defense or denigration.

arka2147483647 5y ago
In princible, the progressive left supports free speach. In practice, disagreement is met with explanations and accusations of ”shifting overton window”, ”new normal” and ”normalization”. Meaning that, Yes, you do have the right of free speach, but No, you should not be saying the wrong things.
- samsari 5y ago
  Just because I support your right to say it doesn't mean I have to celebrate what you say, or why you said it.
  - efaref 5y ago
    This is exactly the problem. "I do not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" has been replaced with "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences". The latter is, of course, utter nonsense. Repercussions or retaliation for expressing wrongthink is the literal definition of a place that does not have freedom of speech.
    - msg3 5y ago
      I'm sorry but I have to disagree here. You want your speech to be free from consequences -- i.e if you were to call someone a liar / cheat, they can't change their opinion of you based on what you've said? How is that compatible with their freedom of thought? To me, freedom of speech means I shouldn't worry about legal repercussions for expressing wrongthink. There is perhaps a separate discussion to be had about the sort of society we want to live in - do we want to promote open discussion, even if it can be divisive? But I don't think it's really a rights issue unless the consequences progress from social / economic to legal.

lifeisstillgood 5y ago

Would you feel more comfortable in a company that openly encouraged / enforced political debate within a civil framework? Is the problem (in your company and the world at large) that open respectful political debate has not got a common set of rules / words? If there was a phrase "I respectfully disagree - I understand that ..." was a phrase used by every TV host, Politician and Facebook poster, would prefacing your words with that make others more open to receiving it?

secondcoming 5y ago
Political debate used to have rules. Take this [0] debate between William F Buckley and Noam Chomsky about the Vietman War, for example. The two clearly detested each other but the debate was mostly civil. Christopher Hitchens' debate are others worth watching. Does these even happen any more in MSM? [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DvmLMUfGss
- amalcon 5y ago
  Western society seems to have gotten the idea that "debate" is either talking heads trying to shout over each other, presenting prepared arguments to random unprepared people and claiming victory when it takes time to respond, or simply presenting opinions back and forth without trying to justify them. This is tied to the (independent but both incorrect) notions that whoever has the last word in a debate is the winner, and whoever wins the debate is necessarily right. I think it would be valuable to somehow expose ordinary people to structured competitive debate, if only because it makes many of these falsehoods evident. This kind of debate uses the rules to select the positions of the parties and when they get to speak. Obviously the last speaker doesn't necessarily win, and the winner doesn't necessarily even believe their own position (so the debate doesn't prove that position right). Yet still, it's much better at educating people on the issues than any "debate" that most people have ever watched.
  - Digory 5y ago
    Unfortunately, structured competitive debate these days has gone off the rails. At least, college debate in the US has become ridiculous. Moot court and mock trial retain some semblance of argumentation. But you would have to reinvent the kind of formal debate you’re imagining.

dr_dshiv 5y ago

I would say that this is a failure of philosophy in political leadership. Not that philosophy was ever paramount in politics, but it was at least expected in the highest classes. Everything devolves into tribalism without philosophy. It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling.

BiteCode_dev 5y ago
> It looks like people are discoursing, but they are really just signalling. I was looking to put words on my feeling about this, and you did it perfectly. I was wondering why suddenly so many people voiced the same engaged opinion, while I know for having discussed with them in private settings that they don't think deeply about society. Now I realize that's because they want to look like they belong to a certain kind of people. It's not about ideas. It's about tribes.
- DyslexicAtheist 5y ago
  > It's not about ideas. It's about tribes. wonder what percentage of our likelihood to survive depend on ensuring we still are part of the tribe (e.g. signalling)? I think all communication other than the functional coordination of mundane things (can you pick the kids up today? how much for X etc) would fall into that category. Why otherwise bother with any of it at all? It seems there is perhaps a relation between the amount of tribalism and uncertainty in life people face? It's easier to take risks and care about art and talk about very complex topics in a distanced way with people from opposing views when we're not in the thick of it?
  - circlefavshape 5y ago
    In my more pessimistic moments I find myself moving towards the same conclusion. The vast majority of communication between people seems, at its root, to simply be sorting of in-group from out-group
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]

read_if_gay_ 5y ago

Engaging in real-life political discussions in the current climate is basically all risk, zero reward.

yerwhat01010 5y ago
Only if you have "incorrect" opinions.
- ForHackernews 5y ago
  There's not a lot of reward even for the bien pensant.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- secondcoming 5y ago
  And of course a 'correct' opinion today might be 'incorrect' tomorrow and since you've previously expressed the 'now incorrect' opinion you can be in trouble. Just delete your Twitter account and say nothing to anyone about anything, especially in the workplace.
oblio 5y ago
From what I remember, in polite circles it was always known that you should never discuss politics and religion with anyone except your immediate family and close friends.
- the-smug-one 5y ago
  "The Fall of Public Man" argues that we actually used to be more political and had to "put our cards on the table" so to speak. This would be as opposed to now, where we are very much able to hide our positions if we so please. I don't know what polite circles would be, but I suppose some sort of aristocracy? Certainly gentile society in 1780s in France were not scared of expressing heavy political discourse in public. Nor were the rich Romans. Edit: And just to be clear. Rich people may perhaps only speak politics with their closest friends, but they certainly act politically with the use of their capital. Imitating them by shutting up has no point and is detrimental to a democratic society.

jb775 5y ago

> how willingly other people bring up politically sensitive issues in the workplace I'd say I'm a mix of conservative/Libertarian and this kind of blows my mind over the past few years. It seems like I constantly hear people on the left openly voicing their political opinions around crowds of people, and always speak in a way that they genuinely believe everyone around them agrees....and often have a condescending way of saying it. It amazes me how they seem to have absolutely no idea where the right-wing people are even coming from. I think this recent over-confidence is mostly due to them not realizing the major media outlets are essentially feeding them communist propaganda (if you don't agree with this I'd consider researching cognitive dissonance). I experience this on a regular basis, and it usually leads to me completely losing respect for that person purely due to the lack of awareness that person is showing. The other dynamic, and what the leftists don't realize (or can't process), is that the left's arguments are primarily things that sound good in practice, but don't add up in theory. It always sounds good when someone says they want to help someone else, no matter who says it. This allows them to go crazy in public giving one liners about the surface level of their political policies ("everyone should have world class health care!", "everyone should have lots of money!", "No one should ever shoot someone else with a gun!"...all because they sound good (even to conservatives). Conservative policies take a bit more explaining to get their point across, and are much more focused on the logical and realistic side of things. No one likes to say "someone who doesn't work and doesn't contribute to society doesn't deserve govt handouts"...but it makes logical sense. That kind of talk doesn't exactly sound as good around the water cooler. Also, the time horizon for conservative viewpoints is often much longer (think about generations in the future and the impact today's decisions will have down the road). Compared to the left's policies that solve shallow issues today while mortgaging the well-being of future generations. The simple fact is that conservatives have an easier time seeing where the left is coming from as a result of the left's primary policies being shallower and less thought out. These aspects also make it easier for the left to create snarky comments around. Conservatives however, simply don't agree and think it's all a pipe dream. They see the shallowness that the left is not able to. The left on the other hand, not only doesn't understand the right's overarching viewpoints...they also aren't even willing to try to understand where the right is coming from.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

yerwhat01010 5y ago

> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This is so true. I've seen polling showing that large numbers of people believe that the number of unarmed black men fatally shot by American police every year is in the "thousands" or even "tens of thousands". And the further to the left the media people consume, the higher they're likely to believe the number is. The actual number of unarmed black men shot dead by American police in 2019 is thirteen. Regardless of what you think about racism and police violence, this is a fact. People who think that "thousands" of unarmed black men are killed by police every year are not only numerous, they are wrong - so absurdly, wildly wrong by so many orders of magnitude that if you tell tell me that the number is in the thousands, I'm going to assume you're deeply uninformed on many other things, not just this one number. Yet in the current climate I'd be afraid to even correct people on this enormous, inarguable factual innaccuracy. (And good luck explaining to people that "unarmed" isn't synonymous with "innocent" - you can be unarmed and still give a cop a good reason to shoot you, for example by attacking the cop with your fists.) Is it really too much to ask that we leave this stuff out of the workplace?

BiteCode_dev 5y ago
I upvoted you because I don't think you should be downvoted for expressing your opinion. But I also think we should wonder: how many white armed men were killed?
- yerwhat01010 5y ago
  Did I express an opinion? I'm pretty sure I just quoted a statistic. But since you asked: American police kill white men (including unarmed white men) at the same rate at which they kill black men, once you control for crime rate and poverty. But police killings of white men don't become national news. Tony Timpa died in near-identical circumstances to George Floyd. Ask yourself why you haven't heard of him. Or Ryan Whitaker, or Daniel Shaver. (Does the overrepresentation of black men among criminals and the poor have anything to do with racism? Obviously it does, and I'm happy to discuss it in good faith. But I've probably derailed the thread enough already.)

switch007 5y ago

> Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense. This resonates deeply. I'm at the point where "I'm entitled to my opinion!" is a great signal to change the topic, never to return to the topic of politics with that person ever again

Closi 5y ago
I think that might be a signal that you have already gone too far into the convo too!
- xupybd 5y ago
  It's a shame if that's the case some of my favorite discussions have been with people tht disagree with me. I hope we haven't lost the ability to have a disagreement and remain friends.
  - justaman 5y ago
    I think its precisely those who can disagree and remain friends that are the people worth maintaining a friendship with. All others are a lower class of acquaintance.
justaman 5y ago
When someone comes at me with "I'm entitled to my opinion!" I reply, "You're entitled to your INFORMED opinion!". I think since around 2008 with the rise of social media, so much of one's ego has been made public. More so than ever before. Its as if everyone is a public figure. Because of this, more people are incapable of accepting that they may be wrong, underinformed, or simply misinformed.
- tomjen3 5y ago
  The problem with that is the question becomes who determines what is informed? It wasn't that long ago that informed people were being made fun of because they where avoiding handshakes despite the CDC not supporting it. Now both those who support and those who disagree with masks think they are the informed party. I have disagreed with the reopening plan for my country, based on the science as I understand it (they didn't open up enough outside) and it now looks like I was right. So the question is, who and how do you determine what constitute an informed opinion?

youngtaff 5y ago

Looking at UK politics… It's funny how people who are conservative claim their right to free speech is being curtailed when at the same time they're busy curtailing the rights of people who aren't like them - immigrants, non-Cis, non-white people, climate change protesters etc. Oh and let's not forget that the conservatives in the UK branded the likely implications of Brexit as “project fear”

textgel 5y ago
Which rights are they curtailing and how are they doing it?
- youngtaff 5y ago
  Laws that affect right to protest such as the one that's currently proceeding through parliament. Anti-immigrant, anti-gay, anti-trans columns in papers like Telegraph, Mail etc.
  - nec4b 5y ago
    Could you be more specific, maybe link to some examples?
    - youngtaff 5y ago
      Search Google for the Right to Protest legislation Go read the stories about JKRowling and others view on trans people, and the editorials about it
      - nec4b 5y ago
        > Search Google for the Right to Protest legislation There is nothing in there as far as i can see specifically targeting leftist protestors, it seem to be written for any kind of protests, even non political. Are only leftist protests in the UK noisy, violent and disruptive? >Go read the stories about JKRowling and others view on trans people, and the editorials about it As far as I know she considers herself a feminist and a liberal and has actively supported feminist causes. I don't know what she has to do with the conservatives and I don't know which rights she is taking away from trans people or how can she even do that.

heresie-dabord 5y ago

> correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense This is modern anti-culture. It's a climate where "opinions" matter more than knowledge and consumerism matters more than democracy. There are many employers. I am an employee, but I am first and foremost a citizen in a Democracy... If I have the courage to defend it and the will to learn/educate. An educational system worth the title should provide understanding of society and democracy.

christophilus 5y ago
I’d say it’s where only mainstream opinions matter, and all else is heresy punishable by fire.
giantg2 5y ago
"It's a climate where 'opinions' matter more than knowledge..." It's not just that. Sometimes the people don't understand the difference between their opinion and facts. Like I could point out some factual incorrectness and they see me as attacking their opinion. A lot of the time they coincidence, but sometimes I might be in favor of their opinion based on other facts and simply don't want misinformation to spread. Or we might share the same objective but that false information would lead to a flawed implementation that would block us from achieving a shared goal. Not to mention, I try not to attack an actual opinion, because everyone is entitled to one, even if it differs from mine.
eplanit 5y ago
This is why employers want to survey applicants' social media posts, to filter out those with activist views like this.
catpatter 5y ago
"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge." Isaac Asimov

kypro 5y ago

I have a few (really lovely) conservative friends who have expressed to me that they feel they can't express their political opinions outside of close friends and family because of the social risks involved with doing so. While I hold some "controversial" political opinions they're mostly related to fiscal policy rather than social policy so I've never personally felt like I couldn't express myself if I wanted to -- although I prefer not discussing politics in work environments. However, last year I decided to start promoting conservative views I don't necessarily agree with that my friends hold to see what the consequences of this would be. I think people would be surprised at how open most people are to be honest. I've expressed conservative views on immigration, trans-rights and Trump as if they were my own and had very little push back outside of Twitter. I can contrast this with the fact that I've seen some people over the last few years express left-wing positions at work and have had at least equal push back. I especially remember one guy who expressed how he felt we should remove statues of historical figures who did things we wouldn't approve of today and got a very strong negative reaction in my office. I wonder if the real problem here is that people who are conservatively minded are just naturally less comfortable with social conflict. I know my progressive friends are in all regards much more opinionated and seem far more comfortable with conflict, where as my conservative friends tend to be the types of people who avoid conflict. Perhaps it's an age thing too. Older people who are generally more conservative and perhaps also less interested in getting into a heated debates on Twitter or in the office about some slightly controversial political position they hold. This difference in willingness to enter into social conflict may explain why conservatives feel they are in a minority despite making up about 50% of the population. All I can say to those who feel oppressed is that as a bullied kid something I learnt from a young age is that it's hard to look myself in the mirror if I start trying to adapt my behaviour to please others. I much rather be myself and hated than try to conform at the expense of my identity. Be proud of who you are and never feel afraid to express yourself. If you're hated for that, so be it. It's better to be yourself than a coward.

hanselot 5y ago
It just takes one person to take offense to something for your life to be ruined. It is not worth the risk talking to anyone about anything remotely "honest" unless you have known them for years and know how they will react. This is a catch-22 because to really trust someone you have to be willing to talk to them (which kind of makes it moot to begin with, right?) Even now I find myself curbing my opinion strongly based on which words have been weaponized with malicious connotation, lets not discuss which 'truth-telling business' could be seen as responsible for this. Lets not discuss the other points which are too numerous to start on, and too political for the likes of this conversation. We could touch on the destruction of Western Academia as a point of origin for all this, we could muse on the comparable style of current social interaction to how things are depicted in 1984, or Communist Russia, but based on the keywords I already dropped, there is surely a large enough group of bots available to run this into the ground. These are all my opinions, none of it is considered some unchangable, unalterable worldview, and I don't believe you can engage critically with anyone if you are not willing to compromise. That being said, compromise comes from both sides, and one side is way better at yelling racist, sexist, misogynist, whenever the bargaining starts.

Underqualified 5y ago

One thing I read recently which seemed weird at first but has made me really consider a lot of things about current culture differently: "Taking offence is an act of aggression"

amalcon 5y ago
I don't mean to pick on you a bit here, but this feels like a good place to express something I've been having trouble with. My parents raised me to do my best to neither take nor give offense. Most of my peers as a child were taught the same way. Obviously we're not Vulcans; We will sometimes inadvertently give offense, or respond emotionally to something that may have been meant innocuously. Yet so much of what I see in public discourse is reveling in both sides of that equation: deliberately trying to provoke emotional reactions from others, intentionally adhering to uncharitable interpretations of others' statements even after they have explained themselves, and celebrating the drama resulting from these things. Civil discourse simply cannot function if this is a substantial part of pubic culture. There is no way to have a productive discussion if even one of the parties is deliberately provoking an emotional response. There is no way to have a productive discussion if even one of the parties is deliberately misinterpreting another in order to justify their own emotional response. Yet the dominant forms of public discourse these days include heavy doses of both of these things.
- vixen99 5y ago
  Pubic culture? Should that be flagged?
  - amalcon 5y ago
    Oops, that's not a great typo. It's too late to edit, though.
- f1refly 5y ago
  I think it just looks like this, mostly becuase of twitter. I've never seen anyone in real live interpret a statement in the most offensive way imaginable and not accept correction nor explanation. The chilling effect is undeniably though.

Tycho 5y ago

Lot of advice floating about the workplace these days along the lines of be candid, join the conversation, bring your whole self to work, etc. The people giving this advice seem to have no conception that not everyone actively engaged in these topics is acting in 100% good faith. Being too open could so easily backfire. Encouraging this is borderline negligent. Indeed there’s entire branches of activism that rest on bad-faith ideologies. Good advice would be to avoid controversial and political discussions and to keep a strong separation between your private life and your work life. Instead, we have employers, especially universities, asking staff to promote their organisations through their personal social media accounts.

blueflow 5y ago
I never got what people mean with "bad faith" stuff. Like its some inherently bad kind of behaviors and ideas? Can you explain it to me like im 5? The worst that i can think of is that people are hiding their true interests and thus lying to you.
- arkh 5y ago
  They want ammo on everyone so they can try and get them fired to replace them with friends and family.
- throwaway894345 5y ago
  The idea is that people are engaging with no interest in making society better. An example might be a person who advocates for policies that are almost certainly harmful to the communities he purports to care about because his rhetoric draws favor (i.e., social capital) from others of his well-to-do segment of the political spectrum. The chief idea is that someone is plainly not interested in addressing the problem they purport to care about, but that they want the benefits of virtue signaling or else the “politics as tribal sport” element or a fondness for malice and divisiveness. To be really clear, I’m not making a veiled political statement—I can think of a dozen ways this could fit a bad faith person on either side of the spectrum.
  - deleted 5y ago

js8 5y ago

I believe that liberalism and conservativism concern different values, liberalism is about personal freedom (like freedom of speech), while conservativism is about preserving the existing values in the society. It's quite normal as we grow up we become more conservative, especially successful people - we want to continue the success that was based on values we grew up with. That's why conservativism is associated with belief in authority - you need authority to enforce the values of the past. So when you grew up, you perceived freedom of speech as a good value because it meant freedom, and now you perceive it as a good value because it was there when you grew up. However, liberals moved on, and found other issues that concern human freedom, which were neglected before. So for instance, there is freedom to have a different sexual orientation, and be able to express it. Conservatives disagree with that value because it simply wasn't part of our culture in the past. (Progressives - or perhaps socialists would be more fitting name - are based on another value, namely inclusion in the community. They are distinct from liberals.)

zozbot234 5y ago
Libertarians have always been favorable to "the freedom to have a different sexual orientation"; it's not a "new" issue that was only discovered recently. However, conservatives and libertarians have always known that the freedom to live one's life as one desires can never extend beyond the point where others' freedoms are curtailed. Otherwise it's not actual freedom, but mere licence.
- Loughla 5y ago
  I don't understand what you're saying here. Please explain. Are the first sentence and the second sentence connected? If so, I am lost.
  - zozbot234 5y ago
    It's hard to answer because I'm not sure what you're asking, or why you are confused. The first and second sentence are describing libertarians' understanding of freedom as a value, and how this connects with "preserving existing values" to use GP's phrasing. It's quite wrong to say that sexual orientation "was not part of our culture in the past", as GP contends (unless you mean a quite remote past). If anything, it was understood in a far more nuanced way that always involved tolerance for others' orientations and value systems.

hilbert42 5y ago

"However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind." You're dead right and it's damned terrible. I long for both formal and informal debates on many topics but without my opponents becoming annoyed or offended (as so often they do nowadays). These days it seems almost impossible to debate any subject without upsetting someone. I now long for the type of television programs that I remember from my youth—talking heads discussing and debating serious topics. For instance, I remember Bertrand Russell, Malcolm Muggeridge and A.J.P. Taylor and many others and it was wonderful and exciting television. What so many people fail to realize these days is that one can learn so much from discussions and debates of this kind. Incidentally, such discussions always remind me of the wonderful formal debate between Socrates and the sophist Thrasymachus in Book One of Plato's Republic on the topic of justice. It's so good that every time I read it, it sends shivers of excitement down my back.

signal11 5y ago
About TV debates — A lot of these have moved to podcasts and YouTube these days. Eg the Oxford Union debates on YouTube, some of which are quite popular. I suspect some talk radio, eg PBS and BBC Radio 4, will also have interesting debates. Radio 4’s magazine programmes like The Life Scientific, In Our Time, The Public Philosopher, Reith Lectures etc certainly make for extremely interesting listening.
- hilbert42 5y ago
  I know, thanks, they're great. Recently I've seen quite a few. Only several days ago I watched for the first time in many decades the program about A.J.P. Taylor and his controversial 1961 book The Origins of The Second World War (which, incidentally I have a copy of). You're right, we really need to spread the word at every opportunity.
- throwaways885 5y ago
  But this is precisely a problem because of the demonetization that occurs on anything sensitive. These podcasts can't easily sustain themselves on a platform that actively de-ranks their content.

anovikov 5y ago

I think in terms of politics, discussion today doesn't really matter and won't convince anyone. It's about identity, not opinions or facts, they don't really matter so when you are trying to argue with a conservative, he is right not to listen to you. They may know that their worldview is all wrong, and they aren't fighting for it because it's right, but because there's nothing in for them in the alternatives: they need to preserve their black-collar workplaces for as long as they can, ideally till they retire (so they reject global warming and other concepts that definitely threaten them), they need value of their houses to stay or increase, or again they will never be able to retire, so they reject any multi-unit housing, affordable or assisted housing etc projects, and so on and so forth. They don't fight for their conservative ideas because they think they are right, but because they have vested interest in them being upheld at least for a while. This is also why in Europe, politics is a lot less divisive. Because most people own nothing and have no vested interest in anything[sarc on], they are already on the hook of the Big State[sarc off]

Matrixik 5y ago

I would say exactly same is happening with health of human body or even how it's working. I simply stopped trying to correct others and talking at all about it. When people start conversing about it, I just shut up.

dustinmoris 5y ago

> I feel as though I am more open-minded than many others. I am always ready to be corrected if I am wrong, and I am always willing to discuss my views with people subscribing to other political ideologies. However, I fear the repercussions of offending others who do not have an open mind. This is how every open and critically minded person feels nowadays. There is a clear line between two groups: 1. People who think the best way to learn, educate and explore other people's views is by having an open discussion, saying uncomfortable things and having an ear to be corrected and showing mutual respect. 2. People who think that saying something uncomfortable during a discussion is an act of offence itself and therefore must be muted even if it takes some form of aggression by one or many people in order to mute that person. A discourse is only allowed if people immediately subscribe to a specific ideological idea and people are not allowed to get to that point through saying or asking the wrong things but must somehow be born with those views or otherwise need to be extinguished by the mob. Unfortunately the 2. group is getting increasingly more violent and aggressive in their approach which makes the 1. group increasingly more aware that they are in fact in danger to just be themselves and learn about life through sometimes tough discourse or mistakes.

ModernMech 5y ago
So let me get this straight: one group is rational, open, and critically minded; while the other is irrational, violent, and aggressive. And people are clearly either in group 1 or group 2. Let me guess, you see yourself as belonging to group 1? If so, what a very convenient worldview you've constructed for yourself.
- dustinmoris 5y ago
  Nah, let me sum it up for you: 1. Likes to talk and learn from talking 2. Likes to mute and preach

bjourne 5y ago

I'm also a politically informed person and, unlike you, I am politically active. What can I say? It's my hobby. People go skydiving on weekends, I engage in left-wing politics. But I'm quite afraid of the possible consequences. What if a prospective employer sees me handing out flyers? What would by colleagues think? Well-paid developer and activist, how does that even work? Aren't they all unemployed and living with their moms? Fact is, many people (certainly a large number of bosses, and those are the ones whose opinions matter) think that you can't work at a private bank if you think private banking shouldn't exist. At every workplace I've been at, liberal (as in right-wing) views have been omnipresent and shared widely. I've often had to bite my tongue. If your coworkers celebrate tax cuts because it gives them more money in their wallets you are a downer for expressing doubts on its consequences for society. Don't argue with people expressing anti-immigration views because you will be labeled a "virtue signaler". I have no problem working with people who do not share my views. I briefly worked with someone who was a member of a Nazi group once (he didn't know I knew). It worked fine.

mrec 5y ago
> liberal (as in right-wing) What the hell? These terms are in no way synonyms. You seem to be fairly extreme left, which is fine, but then labelling everyone to the right of you as "right-wing" is not a useful classification. "Left" and "right" are relative to the political centre, not to wherever you yourself happen to be.
- mmmmmbop 5y ago
  Please consider the possibility that GP is from a different country than you are and that liberal may mean something different there. For example in Sweden, the Liberals are a party that "historically was positioned in the centre" but has since "positioned itself more towards the right". [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals_(Sweden) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberals_(Sweden)
  - Dma54rhs 5y ago
    Liberals in Europe in general are more right wing. Conservatives like big handouts like your liberals in America to stay in power.

SonOfThePlower 5y ago

The result is that world becomes more and more boring. No interesting discussion can take place. Environment becomes more toxic and it's mainly due to radicals who perceive everything as offensive and everybody who disagrees as "nazi" or "racist" or "-phobic".

YinglingLight 5y ago
"No interesting discussion can take place" quickly leads to "No meaningful discussion can take place".
tstrimple 5y ago
I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. It's not hyperbole or an exaggeration. We did have a rally with a bunch of white nationalists exercising their "free speech" to chant "The Jews will not replace us" and they ended up murdering someone there. We had a National Security Advisor to the President of the United States promoting replacement theory. There are countless other examples major and minor over the last 12 years. Just how much racism and bigotry has to be clearly and consistently demonstrated for the labels to stick?
- fidesomnes 5y ago
  > I'm not sure why everyone keeps scoffing at the idea of calling some of these folks Nazis or racists. Except you call everyone Nazis or racists including Jews, blacks, and others (J. K. Rowling for a recent example) who would be considered disqualified from white ethno-nationalist movements.
  - HaggardFinical 5y ago
    Can you point to an example of anyone calling Just Kidding Rowling a nazi or a racist?
    - fidesomnes 5y ago

giantg2 5y ago

I've been one to speak my mind. I see myself as having been punished for it. I was doing work a grade or two above mine but was held back from promotion. So I didn't make senior developer on that team. Then I was even in jeopardy of losing my job over a statement I made (not vulgar, disrespectful, or anything) so I have to switch stacks a couple times to move out of a bad area of the company. I'm 9 years in and just a midlevel. My trust in the company and my desire to work hard for them are abysmal. "Even correcting people who are clearly misinformed on clear matters of fact can cause offense." I was stupid enough to do this too. People were discussing the gender wage gap the way the TV reporters do - that a woman in the same job as a man, with all things equal, makes 80 cents on the dollar. So I brought up the BLS study that shows that the 80 cents number is about an aggregate comparison of all men and women in the workforce, and that the main driver of the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. I wouldn't be surprised if I get downvoted on here for this comment too.

Loughla 5y ago
Not to get too far into a debate about this, as we're well off the path of the article now, but I'm genuinely not sure if you've thought of this. Your argument: >the discrepancy comes from the types of jobs that men and women are in. only comes down to just being a moving the goal posts sort of thing from disparity in pay to disparity in expectation and opportunity for young men versus women. It's not a compelling argument against a gender pay gap, overall. Using your own metric of a broad view, it's probably more of a problem than a specific man versus a specific woman, because it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. Anyway, any workplace that wouldn't let you have a conversation about this topic, in a respectful, non-bigoted way is maybe not a healthy place to work. The problem is, these types of arguments are (in my experience as a professional) a thin veneer of 'civility' over a massive ocean of bigotry and idiocy in many cases. I'm afraid employers take a hard line, because it's easy to slip into that ocean.
- nostromo 5y ago
  > it points to a theory that societal norms serve to re-enforce the expectation of taking jobs in lower paying fields on women versus men. That’s one theory. Another is that women and men in the aggregate don’t choose the same careers in exactly even proportions.

gameswithgo 5y ago

Whether there is legitimate fear of reprisal or not, work is not a good place to talk politics, religion, or any other topic that gets people emotional. Unless of course topic is relevant to your work!

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

jcadam 5y ago

HR departments are also being given the false impression that their latest "initiatives" have near-universal support because they only hear words of praise from the usual politically outspoken set. Everyone else keeps their mouths shut. A large number of employees are in a "quiet seething" mode and are becoming increasingly disengaged from workplace culture (i.e., "I don't want to get to know any of you. I just want to do my work and clock out"). On the bright side, remote work helps with this.

AnimalMuppet 5y ago

Hmm. Seems like, in a political discussion/argument, the least open mind "wins", because they are the most impervious to evidence. But the consequence is that the other side becomes less open minded too. They've tried arguing with someone who Just. Will. Not. Listen, who Just. Will. Not. Think. And when they run into the same arguments from someone else, they are less likely to be willing to listen themselves. It's hard to stay open minded in the middle of this. It's a battle. There are areas I just don't want to talk about any more. So I guess I'm losing the battle, at least to some degree.

marrs 5y ago

I still speak my mind openly in the work place and invariably I find that most people are actually delighted when they realise they can have open conversations with me without fear of judgement. The vast majority of people are still entirely reasonable. Of course you never know if you’re going to say the wrong thing to the wrong person, but I don’t go to work to make friends and I certainly don’t go there to be intimidated by bullies. I can count the number of unreasonable people I’ve had to deal with on the knuckles of one finger and they all skulked away pretty quickly when they realised I was standing up to them. I’m not trying to downplay what you’re saying. I think there is a culture of fear and I think it’s been stoked deliberately to a certain extent, but I also think it’s a lie. Most of the people you work with are probably like you. That may also explain why you don’t notice them ;)

nickalaso 5y ago
And, let me guess, your political opinion could be largely quantified as being left of center?
- marrs 5y ago
  I’d probably describe myself as in the centre, but who knows what that means anymore? I relate somewhat to the parent comment.