Like Peter Thiel, Tech Workers Feel Alienated by Silicon Valley ‘Echo Chamber’

The endgame hopefully is that intellectually dishonest strategies from all sides become discredited.

Also, the point is not that less conservatives are in tech companies is the issue. I am under no illusion that probably no more than 10-15% of SV tech workers are going to be conservative. This is well within my personal estimate judging from people I met in university (during which they were more open about their political leanings) who went on to go into tech. It's that the conservatives that are (and even centrists and less-extreme liberals) feel the need to put on a facade while at work and that the political environment has become isolated to the extent that even mainstream conservative and even centrist views are considered abjectly racist or wrong.

I'd consider an office with 5% conservatives where those conservatives feel empowered to share their opinion to be a better working environment, as compared to an office with 25% conservatives where all those conservatives put on a facade of liberalism out of fear of repercussion.

However, this isn’t actually the issue - the issue is that the (relatively small) population of conservative-leaning (or just not-entirely-liberal) people in SV and elsewhere cannot expect to speak their minds and also keep their careers. Even relatively milquetoast, vaguely conservative people like Brendan Eich are (evidently) at serious risk.

However, for conservatives it's an open question of whether they really are underrepresented or they seem underrepresented because they're hiding their viewpoint.

Perhaps a more useful parallel would be sexual orientation a couple decades ago, where there used to be all kinds of policies like "don't ask, don't tell" and you might have gotten an impression that your company or industry has very few gay people while in fact they're there just hiding in the closet.

* That affirmative action should be illegal or more heavily restricted.

* That unlawful residents should be removed from the country, even if previous administrations chose not to enforce immigration law.

* That welfare programs should be cut back.

* That taxes should be reduced, even if they're reduced in such a way that the wealthy receive a greater tax cut than the non-wealthy.

* That restrictions on firearms purchases and ownership should be kept permissive, and that restrictive local laws (e.g. California's) are unlawful.

* That the US should be more restrictive in allowing foreigners to work in the country (e.g. raising the minimum salary for H1B workers)

* That inequalities in education, employment, and achievement should not be presumed to be indications of bias.

These are just quick examples. Personally, I advise anyone to conceal their political leanings if they agree with any of these statements in my current workplace if they wish to preserve their career prospects, and I think that's a shame. All of these are things that half to 30% of the voting population believes in, and are on the core platform of one of the two major US parties. Any workplace that claims to tolerate conservative views should tolerate these statements.

"Conservative", "liberal", "centrist", etc. are by no means monolithic attributes. I think these labels are better described as broad generalizations of individual positions on issues. For example, I agree with 70-80% of "liberal" positions (maybe closer to 60% if you include San Francisco local issues, but there's arguments to be made that's more "far-left" vs. "left" than liberal vs. conservative). I still consider myself a liberal. That said, I still do censor myself on any non-anonymous forums for the remaining 20-30%.

Maybe it’s not politics that gets you into trouble, it just seems that some people will never be dominant enough for their tastes.

Equality of opportunities/rights for the particular individual wherever they may be, not attempting to get equality of outcomes for the aggregate by harming individual rights or justifying local oppression by some wider goal.

If a gay person has to hide their orientation, it's bad - not because gays need protection, but because that individual is restricted.

If someone has to hide their religion, it's bad - not because that religion needs protection, but because that person gets restricted.

If someone has to hide their political affiliation - same thing, no matter if it's support of some presidential candidate, legalization or criminalization of some drug, support for or against unions, etc, etc.

"Feeling alienated" because others don't agree with you is a reasonable result; I mean, this is a zero sum game, all viewpoints can't be most popular everywhere. But it crosses the line when it comes to actual discrimination in the workplace, which is bad no matter whether it's done by or against the nationally dominant "tribe". If people have to shut up or face personal consequences (as opposed to getting ignored because the voice of others is considered more sane), then "You have every right to speak" has failed.

If I can say whatever I want but my political opponents (who want to implement evil policies for immoral reasons) can not, then we don't have free speech. Even if someone rabidly opposes free, inclusive, diverse society, says so, and gets punished for that - that's not a free, inclusive, diverse society; just as in that overused "Voltaire" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall) quote.

Political opponents will always consider and label each others policies and arguments as immoral and unacceptable, as you say, extreme and noxious; so unless we allow (in practice, by ensuring that people don't get punished for that by others) speech that seems immoral, unacceptable, extreme and noxious then we ensure that the political opposition doesn't get free speech. People should be able to talk in our workplace about why they like the noxious candidate and why the evil policy is needed (to achieve the immoral reason) without me or the workplace punishing them - otherwise I might not be able to talk in our workplace about why I like my candidate and why I want to have the opposite policy for incompatible moral reasons, which seem immoral and evil to them.

A lot of my colleagues who happily brand themselves as liberal, all think unregulated illegal immigration will cause problem, I don't think there is any chance they will self identify as conservative.

As an individual I might agree with some of the points, but disagree with the rest, like I all for more restrictive gun control and think it is due to an outdated law. It is indeed a problem itself to force people into two buckets and create a us-vs-the-world mentality.

And not too long ago, hell, even currently in some places, it was considered a mainstream conservative view that gays should not have the same rights to marry. If a person holding that view were to work at, say, Grindr, I would absolutely expect them to receive push back on it.

AFDC got replaced with the more restrictive TANF as the primary federal-funded welfare program in the 1990s by the Republican Congress with Clinton’s support, but welfare was not repealed.

And in case I didn't make this clear, that was just a quick dump of views that I think are generally considered conservative. Real life is much more nuanced than a list of bullet points. I fully agree that there are, for example, people who want tougher immigration laws but otherwise don't consider themselves conservative.

[1] https://readwrite.com/2014/01/24/github-meritocracy-rug/ I realize this is just one example, but people on my own company's forums have caught flak for using the word "meritocracy".

Marc Andressen said something similar in an interview, I'm going to dig it up and post it here as an edit. Here it is, the relevant bits are around 28 minutes: https://a16z.com/2017/05/15/andreessen-primack-dc-tech-polic...

The question isn't, or shouldn't be, "Do we have representation of women/conservatives/whatever in proportion to demographics?" Instead, the question should be "Are we treating people unfairly?"

For example, I'd feel quite comfortable wearing a Burnie Sanders shirt or hat to work. I'd expect that wearing a MAGA hat would cause problems.

It would be weird to feel offended, or more specifically, "discriminated" against, were you to discuss publicly, in the company of other co-workers, your specific actions in the bedroom or bathroom.

For example, I hope no one is arguing for ensuring "our free speech rights" to talk about the details of their bowl movements or bedroom proclivities in a sprint planning meeting.

> otherwise I might not be able to talk in our workplace about why I like my candidate and why I want to have the opposite policy for incompatible moral reasons, which seem immoral and evil to them.

Why do people expect a different response to, and treatment of, political opinions?

Even if what you would consider a "political opinion" is advertised, circulated or pushed by your employer, your coworkers, "general vibes" - why the expectation that any and all political opinions should be granted the utmost respect, neutrality and objectivity? And most specifically, why this expectation in the workplace? When has the workplace become a "safe space", where, if one political opinion is discussed, all must be allowed to?

Sexual orientation was deemed (ImNAL, my simple understanding) a protected class - in that, we (via our legal system) agreed discrimination against this class is illegal (like age, race).

Are you arguing for not only political affiliation, but political expression to be protected as well?

Should, say, an extremely conservatively run family business be allowed to deny employment to a candidate specifically because they have strong liberal views?

I personally think political opinions and affiliation are nowhere near as fundamentally universal as age and race. For one, opinions are a choice. Therefore, 100% yes, such a business would be well within its rights to deny the candidate employment.

Workplaces are dictatorships, not democracies. If part of that absolute command structure includes the discussion of only one side of a political opinion, it does not follow that all opinions should be given the opportunity to be heard (for fear that it _might_ discourage its existence and expression nonetheless!). I would even go so far as to say perhaps you are too eager to express your own opinions, and too quick to feel threatened by the sound of others. Since politics is an expression of values, are you not holding one set of values, while in the company of what seems to be scores of people who hold no such ones themselves?

Politics is an inherently divisive, generally un-or-misinformed and emotional topic. I have some political opinions not everyone, or even most, will agree with (find me an example of two people who share in common all political opinions!). If I have such an urge to also present those view points, I would then also rationally be prepared for the backlash. My opinions have not been censored, I can go to any street corner, website or pub to discuss any such opinion I might have.

My employment ramifications would be the same as discussing activities of the bedroom or bathroom in those environments; in taste, a private conversation of a sensitive topic. Loudly and publicly; a risk calculation incurred by my employer - one they are allowed to make with any prejudice they desire.

You can find similar clips from Hillary and Schumer, just not from this decade.

1. your immigrant coworkers who entered the country on H1B or other visas;

2. coworkers who benefited from affirmative action to get into university;

3. friends/relatives of law-abiding-but-undocumented aliens.

You might think you are just making abstract policy statements. But to your listeners, you are making threats to destroy their livelihood and their families. Of course they react negatively!

How would you react if someone, in the name of abstract policy, argued that people belonging to your demographic group don't deserve jobs or should be kicked out of the country?

"There is a maximum of 60 months of benefits within one's lifetime, but some states have instituted shorter periods."

Many Americans think you can collect welfare payments, which are about $300 per person, depending on the state, in perpetuity.

That's just not true.

I still wonder where this 'welfare' system is that people think exist.

I don't agree - there is a subset of people that criticize meritocracy as a concept because they believe the idea of 'merit' is inherently racist and classist - if you start at a different level, it becomes more difficult for you to accrue 'merit' and so that needs to be balanced and taken into account. Some people believe this is much more important than hiring or promoting on 'merit'

The people who write about these things always say they don't like when the word meritocracy is being used to hide bias.

They aren't equal things though. The latter is basically you promoting the idea that people of different backgrounds aren't as welcome in the workplace. Especially if your workplace hires anyone on an H1-B or on any other kind of visa, or anyone from Iran, Sudan, Iraq, or the other Muslim ban countries.

I get that in terms of an election they are both equally valid political candidates. But the actual substance of both pieces of clothing is different. One is easily going to divide any workplace where you have employees of foreign nationalities or minorities and the other isn't. There's a reason why what you expect from both scenarios makes sense.

Here's another: https://practicaltheorist.wordpress.com/2012/11/14/the-myth-...

Here's a critique stating that the terms aren't defined enough to be said to be 'just'

http://assets.press.princeton.edu/chapters/s6818.pdf

The last one is the most fascinating, I really recommend you read it if you're interested in these things. Amartya Sen is brilliant.

Though I suppose it's easier to dismiss complaints about bias when we pretend those complainers just hate our meritocracy.

I'm not sure how to parse your last sentence. Could you clarify what you mean?