17 ms·

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc. And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and t

by stolio 12y ago

I spent about ten years being an "ally" to feminism, to the LGBT community, to minorities, etc. And then my views drifted ever so slightly from the tried and true party lines. One day I said I thought it was wrong that Brandon Eich was forced out of Mozilla, I said I thought it was wrong the way he was treated. Immediately the decade spent arguing for gay rights and marriage equality disappeared and I became a bigot, the enemy. One day I said it seemed clear that there is in fact a biological aspect to gender. The decade spent arguing for feminist politics disappeared, and I became a sexist. Just like that. I've lost friends, old friends over these things. My politics are still left of center but I've learned not to open my mouth around the social justice set because to them I'm a sexist/bigot/racist/etc. It's amazing just how small a step out of line you have to take before the group tries to collectively shame you into seeing the light. It's amazing that shame has become a central tool for trying to create positive social change.

indlebe 12y ago
Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc? Are these comments on your blog, or real life friends, or both? >politics are still left of centre The whole left-right thing is really a false dichotomy. It sounds to me like you associated/associate with extremists of political correctness. I hold some very progressive ideologies, but I have never faced ridicule if I don't "tow the line" as you are experiencing. But then again I don't blog or share my views that publicly.
- Kalium 12y ago
  > Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc? You'd be surprised. I left the Bay for a handful of years, and when I came back half of my friends had become political radicals. There is no lack of people who will react badly if you don't share their views in detail.
  - efnx 12y ago
    This goes in all directions.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      Indeed it does.
    - girvo 12y ago
      It does. But that's one of the things I loved about small-l liberals, when I was younger this focus on "thoughtcrime" wasn't there. Now we are not that much better in this regard than those we are opposed to. Horseshoe theory I guess.
  - jgeorge 12y ago
    I go out of my way to NOT discuss politics amongst colleagues and co-workers, as my political beliefs are not anyone's business but my own and the ballot box's. While in private I actually agree with a fair amount of the ideals espoused by my far-more-progressive colleagues, I'm regularly called out in some circles for NOT sharing my views in detail and participating in the collective political superiority circle.... well, you know what I mean.
- xtrumanx 12y ago
  How about right here at HN? Earlier this week someone commented on using shame as a tool for "positive change". I once wrote a comment on a thread here on HN but after considering past reactions of HN of similar comments, I didn't bother submitting the comment and closed the tab instead. I don't necessarily care about karma but I use it as a way to figure out what kind of stuff the community wants to hears from me. When I get downvoted I make a mental note to keep such opinions to myself next time. I rather have some of my comments be visible than have them greyed out or dead.
  - smt88 12y ago
    Shame can be (and has been) a tool for positive change. I grew up in the South. Many of my peers never heard racist comments until they were adults, even though many adults in our community were deeply racist. That made my generation far less racist than older ones. So why were the racists so quiet? Because it stopped being socially acceptable to be racist. Those people were ashamed of publicly stating their views. Racism become something you might believe, but didn't say to a child. It's not a pleasant tool, and it's often abused, but there are definitely shades of gray there.
    - xtrumanx 12y ago
      One reason I don't like that idea is that it creates hypocrites. I'd rather get thing like that out in the open since it may even be possible to convince some of those people that their beliefs are wrong but if you shame them into silence, you may not even have the chance to identify them.
      - angersock 12y ago
        "you may not even have the chance to identify them." And if so, why is that a problem? If you never knew, why would it bother you?
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        Because if they're specifically hiding their racism in certain contexts they are probably still making harmful actions elsewhere.
vacri 12y ago
It's worth remembering that one advantage right-side politics have is that they are passionate for the status quo. Left-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement; it's much easier for lefties to disagree about what kind of change they want, than for righties to disagree about how they want things to stay the same...
- deciplex 12y ago
  I wonder if this is a reaction to Republican party politics of the last 20 years or so? They seem to speak with a single voice, even if that voice is usually saying stupid, hateful, regressive things. That they march in such lockstep is probably their greatest asset as a party, and I really don't know if it's something to be emulated or not (leaning toward 'not', though).
  - brandonmenc 12y ago
    Conservatives, Republicans in particular, unlike the Left, when it comes time to vote, will put aside even major differences in order to crush what they consider to be the greater evil. After that, they get back to the usual internal skirmishes.
  - WillNotDownvote 12y ago
    "They seem to speak with a single voice" This is something that even casual observation of the real world as opposed to rhetoric will show you that it's not true.
    - deciplex 12y ago
      Like, when they all mysteriously start saying "I'm not a scientist" at exactly the same time? I'm not suggesting they all adhere to the same ideology. I'm saying that they have better party discipline.
  - omegaham 12y ago
    I would actually argue that the Left is far more ideologically consistent. The Right is badly split between the fiscal and the social conservatives; half of them couldn't care less about abortion and gay rights, and half of them couldn't care less about the economy. In contrast, while they disagree about how far left to go, the Left is mostly pretty consistent on the fundamentals of their platform.
soup10 12y ago
most people are idiots, right or left, we're all stupid together!
forgingahead 12y ago
"The Revolution devours its children"
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
javajosh 12y ago
I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.
- solipsism 12y ago
  It sounds like you're saying yours is the nuanced position and anyone disagreeing with you does so out of inability to grasp the nuance. Is that how you really feel?
  - solipsism 12y ago
    Down voters, try to understand that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the position in Eich, so calm your itchy down-voting fingers. I'm asking for a clarification.
    - Kalium 12y ago
      I believe javajosh is implying that a number of people failed to grasp the position in question, rather than anything about agreement.
      - solipsism 12y ago
        Sure, maybe. It also can be read as a statement that those who disagree simply don't get the nuance. So I politely asked for clarification, which I guess is not tolerated.
        Dylan16807 12y ago
        >politely Bless your heart.
  - javajosh 12y ago
    Nope. I honestly don't think there is disagreement, because I don't think many people understood my position. They made up their mind Eich was evil, so when I said anything in support of him, I became evil. That is inability to grasp nuance.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ytturbed 12y ago
>shame has become a central tool for trying to create positive social change Yet it doesn't. It creates fear and reduces communication. The motive for shaming people, for trying to make people feel guilty, is to increase the power of the one who does the shaming. To cement their position in the in-group. Because deep inside they feel weak and powerless. Whereas truly good people make you feel stronger and they inspire you by their example of virtue.
- mercer 12y ago
  And by reducing communication, it reduces the chances of people changing their beliefs. It might even strengthen their existing beliefs. And that goes for both sides of the argument, so you better make sure you're right before you start jumping on others for their 'wrong' beliefs. I consider it an important goal to be as patient and open to communication as possible with others, and politely decline communication (or friendship) only when it's clear that there is nothing to be done, and that our views are too far apart. Often I've failed at that. I've had my moments where someone's views were so offensive to me that I could not stay calm and continue conversing, but I consider that my failing, and something to work on. And to some extent I accept that I have my limits. One of the reasons I take this approach, is that I've been utterly wrong in my beliefs in the past (conservative Christian, bible-belt style). Or rather, I think I was utterly wrong. And yet I was the same 'rational' person I am now. Another reason is that I've spent most of my life being around wildly different people and cultures and belief systems. And the one thing it made me realize is that most people are not 'evil' in their beliefs, but that they either 1) never really thought about them much, or 2) made a fundamental error at some point of the process. For example, it was only when I started reading 'republican' blogs that I started to understand and to a degree even appreciate their point of view on many things. Understanding the religious elements in this dynamic made this a bit easier too. Perhaps the problem the author describes is a result of people living in very 'homogenous' surroundings, and as a result perhaps they never learned how to disagree in a civil way, or respect someone's views even though they disagree with them.
JackFr 12y ago
From Darkness at Noon: “Why did you execute Bogrov?” “Why? Because of the submarine question,” said Ivanov. “It concerned the problem of tonnage – an old quarrel, the beginnings of which must be familiar to you. “Bogrov advocated the construction of submarines of large tonnage and a long range of action. The Party is in favour of small submarines with a short range. You can build three times as many small submarines for your money as big ones. Both parties had valid technical arguments. The experts made a big display of technical sketches and algebraic formulae; but the actual problem lay in quite a different sphere. Big submarines mean: a policy of aggression, to further world revolution. Small submarines mean: coastal defense – that is, self-defense and postponement of world revolution. The latter is the point of view of No. 1, and the Party. “Bogrov had a strong following in the Admiralty and amongst the officers of the old guard. It would not have been enough to put him out of the way; he also had to be discredited. A trial was projected to unmask the partisans of big tonnage as saboteurs and traitors. We had already brought several little engineers to the point of being willing to confess publicly to whatever we liked. But Bogrov wouldn’t play the game. He declaimed up to the very end of big tonnage and world revolution. He was two decades behind the times. He would not understand that the times are against us, that Europe is passing a wave and must wait until we are lifted by the next. In a public trial he would only have created confusion amongst the people. There was no other way possible than to liquidate him administratively.
B-Con 12y ago
I believe that most people agree the Left tends to attract idealists. While that has advantages, it also has disadvantages. Many extreme viewpoints are born out of what people wish were true and nothing else. If you dare say something that doesn't fully support their perfect picture ideal, you're a hostile combatant to them. Definitely a lot of idealists who could stand to mature some.
- mkr-hn 12y ago
  > I believe that most people agree the Left tends to attract idealists. No more than any other leaning.
qnaal 12y ago
I wonder what about that community caused it to evolve like that
- nostrademons 12y ago
  Hypothesis: When people are powerless for a long period of time, all they learn is the "language" of power, and every issue is cast as a life-or-death struggle where you are either with them or against them. When such people are close to attaining power, actually achieving it is the only thing that matters to them. They often become just as dogmatic oppressors as the people they fought against. It takes time to learn higher-level "languages" like empathy, or justice, or reasoned argument, and typically these skills can only be learned in a situation where you have a certain baseline of personal power. And so you get see-saw effects where the groups on top change but nothing is ever more just about the society. I can see this dynamic with certain Hacker News personalities who've been in powerless positions in the past and hence frame every comment as an us vs. them struggle, and it also explains the political history of numerous countries (eg. Russia, Rwanda, Israel/Palestine) in the modern era. It's a very common theme in arts & literature as well, eg. 1984, The Hunger Games, The Who ("Won't get fooled again"), South Park.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    I think I get what you mean, but bear in mind that the examples in the article are all people who come from privileged backgrounds. It is definitely not about personal powerlessness, at least. It's something else.
    - classicsnoot 12y ago
      It is, I believe,poor reasoning to equate privilege with power in the way you seem to. From a different perspective: a privileged white male [me] who is very sensitive to history and narrative, who knows that there is so much institutionalized bigotry in my sub group, who must actively work to be the man I wish to see around me, can feel completely powerless in the face of fate to live outside the external expectation of what my skin and penis are supposed to mean regardless of the prodigious opportunities I have enjoyed due to the biological lottery.
angersock 12y ago
One of the most annoying places to be right now is to have sympathies with both sides of these issues and to try to discuss things rationally and evenly. Simple example: I've got two good friends, one of them on one side of the GamerGate nonsense, and one on the other. I have to be very careful chatting with them, because while they each separately are very articulate and reasoned in their arguments, I cannot even pretend to identify with any of the other side without risking very strongly being labeled and shut out of further discussion. You'd think you could get these people to agree to sit down and calmly hear each other out, maybe critique each other's positions, and perhaps agree to disagree--but no. No, instead one side will immediately feel like they are being judged and condescended to and set up for mocking, and the other will feel that they are probably tempting a campaign of harassment and stalking and abuse. Neither can talk openly and freely because they assume that the other person, once flagged as the opposition, will be doing everything disingenuously. One cannot have reasoned discussions in such an environment. And if you do agree with the people who are either side of GamerGate? You're either siding with people who use threats and really sloppy language ("SJW" as a catchall for any goddamn thing that even is remotely related, good or bad), or siding with people who bully and pander and conduct successful mass-media campaigns belittling their opponents. Like, nobody deserves to win this. ~ The thing that's most annoying to me, though, is that one side you can kind of reason with, because you slowly wittle away the crazy into an admission that "Well, yeah, we should treat them with some class, I guess. Death threats aren't actually okay." The other side, though, has made central to its position a sort of victimhood, and that is a position very hard to navigate somebody out of. And so, even if you try and work on things, they'll acknowledge a small portion of why the other side has its issues, and then immediately revert to "But, think of the fear and the suffering and blah blah blah". And it's annoying, because if you try to stand on that side and argue back with the jerks making deaththreats and doxxing and doing nasty shit, you look over your shoulder to see your allies and they're automartyring and being downright mean and just clearly not acting in any sort of productive way. And if you're on the other side and trying to support the nerds who are getting picked on and made fun of and made out to be manchildren and whatnot? Your allies are busy calling in bomb threats and making the most puerile gestures and getting so damned emotional in their trolling they losing sight of the big picture--and playing right into the hands of their opponents. It's just so goddamn frustrating. The exact same thing plays out in politics: one side will make fun of and harass the other side, and that side will continually play the abused and purge anybody who doesn't fall in with them. And between the two of them, there's simply no place for anybody who doesn't want to look like a buffoon or an opportunistic victim.
Meekro 12y ago
I know what you mean! I've been a supporter of gay marriage for my whole life. But when the Brendan Eich thing happened, I was stunned. The "good" side of this fight was acting more evil than the "evil" side. What terrified me most was reading the ArsTechnica forum and seeing the majority cheering for his downfall, and totally ignoring the dangerous precedent that a person could be fired for donating to the wrong ballot proposition. I tried arguing that allowing people to get fired for their political activity, even if that activity is misguided, is far more dangerous to democracy and society than Prop 8 ever was. I was slammed and downvoted waaaaay into the negatives. That event really changed my outlook on social liberalism.
- jsprogrammer 12y ago
  Brendan. Wasn't fired; resigned, but could have stayed on. Everyone has the right to choose their leader (if they even want one).
  - davesque 12y ago
    You know, the fact that this post was down-voted is actually a great example of the phenomenon being discussed here. Opposing views are met with hostility. I really think HN needs a lesson on down-arrow usage.
    - mkr-hn 12y ago
      I was downvoted into oblivion back during that debacle for suggesting there were more possible viewpoints than "fire him" and "don't fire him." Everyone assumed I was from the "fire him" camp because I had a problem with his views (as expressed through his donation). HN has that well-understood problem where intelligent people think they're immune to faulty judgement, so they end up being easy to manipulate with simplistic but pleasant-sounding arguments. I happen to agree that progressive (i.e: self-described as intelligent and open-minded) people tend to be hypocritical and easy to manipulate, but I'm obviously coming away from that with different ideas than the people upthread.
    - jsprogrammer 12y ago
lern_too_spel 12y ago
Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your time as enthusiastically to that organization knowing what its head has done? Would you be a little more likely to donate your time elsewhere instead, even if just to feel less uncomfortable around your black friends? Now imagine that most of the people who volunteer for this organization hold progressive views and have the same decision to make. It's not hard to see that this appointment could threaten the continued existence of the organization. Now replace blacks with gays, bus position with marriage (which, I'm sure you agree, is a far worse restriction), and she with he.
- girvo 12y ago
  Crucifying someone publicly and professionally for their political views when their job has little to do with them just doesn't sit right for me, even if I find his views on gay marriage deplorable. We used to fire people from their jobs (and worse) because they were gay. What happened to Brendan isn't too different, and the result is the same: removing someone from their job because of something that has little to do with their ability to do it... Edit: they're not exactly the same, of course. I just find their too close for comfort. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to death your right to say it"? When did the side of the political spectrum I agree with become okay with thoughtcrime and censorship? Brendan's case is slightly less sympathetic for me than others, but it's an issue I've seen time and time again, and it's what the OP is talking about.
  - lern_too_spel 12y ago
    Reread my post. Eich had to step down precisely because of his inability to do the job.
- nostrademons 12y ago
  You can turn this argument around too, though. Imagine that you own a bus company in the South in the 1950s. You personally believe that blacks should have every right that whites have, including the ability to sit up front. However, if you passed that policy on your busses, all your white ridership would refuse to buy tickets. Your bus drivers would quit. Your shareholders would fire you. And it's all for naught anyway, because your customers would go to competing bus lines with bigoted owners who hire all your employees away. So you make blacks go to the back of the bus, just like everyone else. Does this mean Rosa Parks was incredibly naive? On a pragmatic level, you're right - companies are under constraints imposed by their stakeholders. But if you're talking moral philosophy or what is right, it's not enough to make arguments based on what everybody else believes. You need to be able to come up with some distinction that holds even if you swap white to black to gay. Are people entitled to their jobs, regardless of their race? Are they entitled to their views? Are they entitled to make political contributions? What are the basic rights that we choose to protect for our citizenry, regardless of the specific form that their expression takes? Part of what made the Brendan Eich issue so problematic for a lot of people is that upholding his right to hold his own personal and political views is not inherently contradictory with upholding the rights of gay Mozilla employees & community members to have a safe working environment. He had publicly promised to uphold Mozilla's existing non-discriminatory and LGBT-friendly policies, and to prevent his personal views from interfering with his duties at Mozilla.

by stolio 12y ago

indlebe 12y ago

Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc? Are these comments on your blog, or real life friends, or both? >politics are still left of centre The whole left-right thing is really a false dichotomy. It sounds to me like you associated/associate with extremists of political correctness. I hold some very progressive ideologies, but I have never faced ridicule if I don't "tow the line" as you are experiencing. But then again I don't blog or share my views that publicly.

Kalium 12y ago
> Who are you sharing your views with that you are experiencing so much judgement, etc? You'd be surprised. I left the Bay for a handful of years, and when I came back half of my friends had become political radicals. There is no lack of people who will react badly if you don't share their views in detail.
- efnx 12y ago
  This goes in all directions.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    Indeed it does.
  - girvo 12y ago
    It does. But that's one of the things I loved about small-l liberals, when I was younger this focus on "thoughtcrime" wasn't there. Now we are not that much better in this regard than those we are opposed to. Horseshoe theory I guess.
- jgeorge 12y ago
  I go out of my way to NOT discuss politics amongst colleagues and co-workers, as my political beliefs are not anyone's business but my own and the ballot box's. While in private I actually agree with a fair amount of the ideals espoused by my far-more-progressive colleagues, I'm regularly called out in some circles for NOT sharing my views in detail and participating in the collective political superiority circle.... well, you know what I mean.
xtrumanx 12y ago
How about right here at HN? Earlier this week someone commented on using shame as a tool for "positive change". I once wrote a comment on a thread here on HN but after considering past reactions of HN of similar comments, I didn't bother submitting the comment and closed the tab instead. I don't necessarily care about karma but I use it as a way to figure out what kind of stuff the community wants to hears from me. When I get downvoted I make a mental note to keep such opinions to myself next time. I rather have some of my comments be visible than have them greyed out or dead.
- smt88 12y ago
  Shame can be (and has been) a tool for positive change. I grew up in the South. Many of my peers never heard racist comments until they were adults, even though many adults in our community were deeply racist. That made my generation far less racist than older ones. So why were the racists so quiet? Because it stopped being socially acceptable to be racist. Those people were ashamed of publicly stating their views. Racism become something you might believe, but didn't say to a child. It's not a pleasant tool, and it's often abused, but there are definitely shades of gray there.
  - xtrumanx 12y ago
    One reason I don't like that idea is that it creates hypocrites. I'd rather get thing like that out in the open since it may even be possible to convince some of those people that their beliefs are wrong but if you shame them into silence, you may not even have the chance to identify them.
    - angersock 12y ago
      "you may not even have the chance to identify them." And if so, why is that a problem? If you never knew, why would it bother you?
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        Because if they're specifically hiding their racism in certain contexts they are probably still making harmful actions elsewhere.

vacri 12y ago

It's worth remembering that one advantage right-side politics have is that they are passionate for the status quo. Left-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement; it's much easier for lefties to disagree about what kind of change they want, than for righties to disagree about how they want things to stay the same...

deciplex 12y ago
I wonder if this is a reaction to Republican party politics of the last 20 years or so? They seem to speak with a single voice, even if that voice is usually saying stupid, hateful, regressive things. That they march in such lockstep is probably their greatest asset as a party, and I really don't know if it's something to be emulated or not (leaning toward 'not', though).
- brandonmenc 12y ago
  Conservatives, Republicans in particular, unlike the Left, when it comes time to vote, will put aside even major differences in order to crush what they consider to be the greater evil. After that, they get back to the usual internal skirmishes.
- WillNotDownvote 12y ago
  "They seem to speak with a single voice" This is something that even casual observation of the real world as opposed to rhetoric will show you that it's not true.
  - deciplex 12y ago
    Like, when they all mysteriously start saying "I'm not a scientist" at exactly the same time? I'm not suggesting they all adhere to the same ideology. I'm saying that they have better party discipline.
- omegaham 12y ago
  I would actually argue that the Left is far more ideologically consistent. The Right is badly split between the fiscal and the social conservatives; half of them couldn't care less about abortion and gay rights, and half of them couldn't care less about the economy. In contrast, while they disagree about how far left to go, the Left is mostly pretty consistent on the fundamentals of their platform.

soup10 12y ago

most people are idiots, right or left, we're all stupid together!

forgingahead 12y ago

"The Revolution devours its children"

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

javajosh 12y ago

I feel ya. I'm a staunch gay rights advocate, even fought prop 8, but I still thought Eich was treated unfairly. A man shouldn't lose his job because of his political views, just like he shouldn't lose it for being, say, transgendered. Needless to say, this is a nuanced position, and some people simply don't have the capacity for nuance, sadly.

solipsism 12y ago
It sounds like you're saying yours is the nuanced position and anyone disagreeing with you does so out of inability to grasp the nuance. Is that how you really feel?
- solipsism 12y ago
  Down voters, try to understand that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with the position in Eich, so calm your itchy down-voting fingers. I'm asking for a clarification.
  - Kalium 12y ago
    I believe javajosh is implying that a number of people failed to grasp the position in question, rather than anything about agreement.
    - solipsism 12y ago
      Sure, maybe. It also can be read as a statement that those who disagree simply don't get the nuance. So I politely asked for clarification, which I guess is not tolerated.
      - Dylan16807 12y ago
        >politely Bless your heart.
- javajosh 12y ago
  Nope. I honestly don't think there is disagreement, because I don't think many people understood my position. They made up their mind Eich was evil, so when I said anything in support of him, I became evil. That is inability to grasp nuance.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

ytturbed 12y ago

>shame has become a central tool for trying to create positive social change Yet it doesn't. It creates fear and reduces communication. The motive for shaming people, for trying to make people feel guilty, is to increase the power of the one who does the shaming. To cement their position in the in-group. Because deep inside they feel weak and powerless. Whereas truly good people make you feel stronger and they inspire you by their example of virtue.

mercer 12y ago
And by reducing communication, it reduces the chances of people changing their beliefs. It might even strengthen their existing beliefs. And that goes for both sides of the argument, so you better make sure you're right before you start jumping on others for their 'wrong' beliefs. I consider it an important goal to be as patient and open to communication as possible with others, and politely decline communication (or friendship) only when it's clear that there is nothing to be done, and that our views are too far apart. Often I've failed at that. I've had my moments where someone's views were so offensive to me that I could not stay calm and continue conversing, but I consider that my failing, and something to work on. And to some extent I accept that I have my limits. One of the reasons I take this approach, is that I've been utterly wrong in my beliefs in the past (conservative Christian, bible-belt style). Or rather, I think I was utterly wrong. And yet I was the same 'rational' person I am now. Another reason is that I've spent most of my life being around wildly different people and cultures and belief systems. And the one thing it made me realize is that most people are not 'evil' in their beliefs, but that they either 1) never really thought about them much, or 2) made a fundamental error at some point of the process. For example, it was only when I started reading 'republican' blogs that I started to understand and to a degree even appreciate their point of view on many things. Understanding the religious elements in this dynamic made this a bit easier too. Perhaps the problem the author describes is a result of people living in very 'homogenous' surroundings, and as a result perhaps they never learned how to disagree in a civil way, or respect someone's views even though they disagree with them.

JackFr 12y ago

From Darkness at Noon: “Why did you execute Bogrov?” “Why? Because of the submarine question,” said Ivanov. “It concerned the problem of tonnage – an old quarrel, the beginnings of which must be familiar to you. “Bogrov advocated the construction of submarines of large tonnage and a long range of action. The Party is in favour of small submarines with a short range. You can build three times as many small submarines for your money as big ones. Both parties had valid technical arguments. The experts made a big display of technical sketches and algebraic formulae; but the actual problem lay in quite a different sphere. Big submarines mean: a policy of aggression, to further world revolution. Small submarines mean: coastal defense – that is, self-defense and postponement of world revolution. The latter is the point of view of No. 1, and the Party. “Bogrov had a strong following in the Admiralty and amongst the officers of the old guard. It would not have been enough to put him out of the way; he also had to be discredited. A trial was projected to unmask the partisans of big tonnage as saboteurs and traitors. We had already brought several little engineers to the point of being willing to confess publicly to whatever we liked. But Bogrov wouldn’t play the game. He declaimed up to the very end of big tonnage and world revolution. He was two decades behind the times. He would not understand that the times are against us, that Europe is passing a wave and must wait until we are lifted by the next. In a public trial he would only have created confusion amongst the people. There was no other way possible than to liquidate him administratively.

B-Con 12y ago

I believe that most people agree the Left tends to attract idealists. While that has advantages, it also has disadvantages. Many extreme viewpoints are born out of what people wish were true and nothing else. If you dare say something that doesn't fully support their perfect picture ideal, you're a hostile combatant to them. Definitely a lot of idealists who could stand to mature some.

mkr-hn 12y ago
> I believe that most people agree the Left tends to attract idealists. No more than any other leaning.

qnaal 12y ago

I wonder what about that community caused it to evolve like that

nostrademons 12y ago
Hypothesis: When people are powerless for a long period of time, all they learn is the "language" of power, and every issue is cast as a life-or-death struggle where you are either with them or against them. When such people are close to attaining power, actually achieving it is the only thing that matters to them. They often become just as dogmatic oppressors as the people they fought against. It takes time to learn higher-level "languages" like empathy, or justice, or reasoned argument, and typically these skills can only be learned in a situation where you have a certain baseline of personal power. And so you get see-saw effects where the groups on top change but nothing is ever more just about the society. I can see this dynamic with certain Hacker News personalities who've been in powerless positions in the past and hence frame every comment as an us vs. them struggle, and it also explains the political history of numerous countries (eg. Russia, Rwanda, Israel/Palestine) in the modern era. It's a very common theme in arts & literature as well, eg. 1984, The Hunger Games, The Who ("Won't get fooled again"), South Park.
- deciplex 12y ago
  I think I get what you mean, but bear in mind that the examples in the article are all people who come from privileged backgrounds. It is definitely not about personal powerlessness, at least. It's something else.
  - classicsnoot 12y ago
    It is, I believe,poor reasoning to equate privilege with power in the way you seem to. From a different perspective: a privileged white male [me] who is very sensitive to history and narrative, who knows that there is so much institutionalized bigotry in my sub group, who must actively work to be the man I wish to see around me, can feel completely powerless in the face of fate to live outside the external expectation of what my skin and penis are supposed to mean regardless of the prodigious opportunities I have enjoyed due to the biological lottery.

angersock 12y ago

One of the most annoying places to be right now is to have sympathies with both sides of these issues and to try to discuss things rationally and evenly. Simple example: I've got two good friends, one of them on one side of the GamerGate nonsense, and one on the other. I have to be very careful chatting with them, because while they each separately are very articulate and reasoned in their arguments, I cannot even pretend to identify with any of the other side without risking very strongly being labeled and shut out of further discussion. You'd think you could get these people to agree to sit down and calmly hear each other out, maybe critique each other's positions, and perhaps agree to disagree--but no. No, instead one side will immediately feel like they are being judged and condescended to and set up for mocking, and the other will feel that they are probably tempting a campaign of harassment and stalking and abuse. Neither can talk openly and freely because they assume that the other person, once flagged as the opposition, will be doing everything disingenuously. One cannot have reasoned discussions in such an environment. And if you do agree with the people who are either side of GamerGate? You're either siding with people who use threats and really sloppy language ("SJW" as a catchall for any goddamn thing that even is remotely related, good or bad), or siding with people who bully and pander and conduct successful mass-media campaigns belittling their opponents. Like, nobody deserves to win this. ~ The thing that's most annoying to me, though, is that one side you can kind of reason with, because you slowly wittle away the crazy into an admission that "Well, yeah, we should treat them with some class, I guess. Death threats aren't actually okay." The other side, though, has made central to its position a sort of victimhood, and that is a position very hard to navigate somebody out of. And so, even if you try and work on things, they'll acknowledge a small portion of why the other side has its issues, and then immediately revert to "But, think of the fear and the suffering and blah blah blah". And it's annoying, because if you try to stand on that side and argue back with the jerks making deaththreats and doxxing and doing nasty shit, you look over your shoulder to see your allies and they're automartyring and being downright mean and just clearly not acting in any sort of productive way. And if you're on the other side and trying to support the nerds who are getting picked on and made fun of and made out to be manchildren and whatnot? Your allies are busy calling in bomb threats and making the most puerile gestures and getting so damned emotional in their trolling they losing sight of the big picture--and playing right into the hands of their opponents. It's just so goddamn frustrating. The exact same thing plays out in politics: one side will make fun of and harass the other side, and that side will continually play the abused and purge anybody who doesn't fall in with them. And between the two of them, there's simply no place for anybody who doesn't want to look like a buffoon or an opportunistic victim.

Meekro 12y ago

I know what you mean! I've been a supporter of gay marriage for my whole life. But when the Brendan Eich thing happened, I was stunned. The "good" side of this fight was acting more evil than the "evil" side. What terrified me most was reading the ArsTechnica forum and seeing the majority cheering for his downfall, and totally ignoring the dangerous precedent that a person could be fired for donating to the wrong ballot proposition. I tried arguing that allowing people to get fired for their political activity, even if that activity is misguided, is far more dangerous to democracy and society than Prop 8 ever was. I was slammed and downvoted waaaaay into the negatives. That event really changed my outlook on social liberalism.

jsprogrammer 12y ago
Brendan. Wasn't fired; resigned, but could have stayed on. Everyone has the right to choose their leader (if they even want one).
- davesque 12y ago
  You know, the fact that this post was down-voted is actually a great example of the phenomenon being discussed here. Opposing views are met with hostility. I really think HN needs a lesson on down-arrow usage.
  - mkr-hn 12y ago
    I was downvoted into oblivion back during that debacle for suggesting there were more possible viewpoints than "fire him" and "don't fire him." Everyone assumed I was from the "fire him" camp because I had a problem with his views (as expressed through his donation). HN has that well-understood problem where intelligent people think they're immune to faulty judgement, so they end up being easy to manipulate with simplistic but pleasant-sounding arguments. I happen to agree that progressive (i.e: self-described as intelligent and open-minded) people tend to be hypocritical and easy to manipulate, but I'm obviously coming away from that with different ideas than the people upthread.
  - jsprogrammer 12y ago

lern_too_spel 12y ago

Vis-à-vis Eich (it's Brendan, by the way), you're undoubtably not a bigot but simply incredibly naïve. Imagine an organization appoints as its head somebody who believes very strongly that blacks should sit in the back of the bus. So strongly that she spent her money to amend the constitution to keep them there — successfully. The organization itself does some work that you believe in, but would you volunteer your time as enthusiastically to that organization knowing what its head has done? Would you be a little more likely to donate your time elsewhere instead, even if just to feel less uncomfortable around your black friends? Now imagine that most of the people who volunteer for this organization hold progressive views and have the same decision to make. It's not hard to see that this appointment could threaten the continued existence of the organization. Now replace blacks with gays, bus position with marriage (which, I'm sure you agree, is a far worse restriction), and she with he.

girvo 12y ago
Crucifying someone publicly and professionally for their political views when their job has little to do with them just doesn't sit right for me, even if I find his views on gay marriage deplorable. We used to fire people from their jobs (and worse) because they were gay. What happened to Brendan isn't too different, and the result is the same: removing someone from their job because of something that has little to do with their ability to do it... Edit: they're not exactly the same, of course. I just find their too close for comfort. Whatever happened to "I disagree with what you're saying, but will defend to death your right to say it"? When did the side of the political spectrum I agree with become okay with thoughtcrime and censorship? Brendan's case is slightly less sympathetic for me than others, but it's an issue I've seen time and time again, and it's what the OP is talking about.
- lern_too_spel 12y ago
  Reread my post. Eich had to step down precisely because of his inability to do the job.
nostrademons 12y ago
You can turn this argument around too, though. Imagine that you own a bus company in the South in the 1950s. You personally believe that blacks should have every right that whites have, including the ability to sit up front. However, if you passed that policy on your busses, all your white ridership would refuse to buy tickets. Your bus drivers would quit. Your shareholders would fire you. And it's all for naught anyway, because your customers would go to competing bus lines with bigoted owners who hire all your employees away. So you make blacks go to the back of the bus, just like everyone else. Does this mean Rosa Parks was incredibly naive? On a pragmatic level, you're right - companies are under constraints imposed by their stakeholders. But if you're talking moral philosophy or what is right, it's not enough to make arguments based on what everybody else believes. You need to be able to come up with some distinction that holds even if you swap white to black to gay. Are people entitled to their jobs, regardless of their race? Are they entitled to their views? Are they entitled to make political contributions? What are the basic rights that we choose to protect for our citizenry, regardless of the specific form that their expression takes? Part of what made the Brendan Eich issue so problematic for a lot of people is that upholding his right to hold his own personal and political views is not inherently contradictory with upholding the rights of gay Mozilla employees & community members to have a safe working environment. He had publicly promised to uphold Mozilla's existing non-discriminatory and LGBT-friendly policies, and to prevent his personal views from interfering with his duties at Mozilla.