Most active commenters
  • peoplewindow(4)
  • orwellian(3)
  • salvar(3)
  • (3)

←back to thread

370 points sillypuddy | 20 comments | | HN request time: 1.718s | source | bottom
Show context
twblalock ◴[] No.16408620[source]
I don't get it. I grew up in Silicon Valley and I work in tech, and so do many other people I know. They run the gamut from far-left socialists to libertarians to own a bunch of guns. They have all kinds of ethnic backgrounds and religious views.

Some of my most libertarian/pro-gun friends have not been shy about their political views and it hasn't hurt their tech careers at all. They are far more welcome here than liberals are in other parts of the country.

It seems to me, from personal experience, that the people who feel alienated are the ones who bring politics to work in an overbearing contrarian way, seeking to cause offense under the guise of "debate," and then pretend to be shocked when people don't want to put up with their shit. Work is for working; it's not a debating society, and especially not when the debating is done in bad faith.

Peter Thiel has been more politically vocal than most, and he is vocal about things he knows to be unpopular. He can't be surprised that people who disagree with him are also vocal. If he can't take the heat he should stay out of the kitchen.

replies(29): >>16408700 #>>16408702 #>>16408705 #>>16408726 #>>16408777 #>>16408809 #>>16408824 #>>16408832 #>>16408894 #>>16408911 #>>16408984 #>>16408994 #>>16409069 #>>16409106 #>>16409126 #>>16409261 #>>16409276 #>>16409302 #>>16409316 #>>16409491 #>>16409495 #>>16409549 #>>16409619 #>>16409750 #>>16409776 #>>16410248 #>>16411133 #>>16412246 #>>16418372 #
manfredo ◴[] No.16408832[source]
I work in the Bay Area and I have personally worked with (as in, on the same team with and working directly in cooperation. CEOs, founders, etc. are not included in this count), exactly one person who discussed their conservative views. This is in comparison to hundreds of liberals. Sure, you may be able to identify at least one person on variety of ends of the political spectrum, but I don't think anyone can sanely deny a vast under representation of conservatives in Silicon Valley. Granted, Silicon Valley itself is politically imbalanced. But even in San Francisco 9% [1] of voters voted Republican in 2016.Despite that, I haven't witnessed anything close to that share of conservatives in my tech jobs - even in my jobs lower in the Peninsula and in South Bay.

Adding this as an edit: Also, do you work in the Bay Area currently (you mentioned you grew up there)? There is a pretty substantial discrepancy between voicing political views in high school and college vs. when people actually start working. I have met more than an order of magnitude more conservatives and non-liberals in 4 years of university in the Bay Area as compared working in tech there - 25 to 30 in unviersity vs. exactly 1 in industry. Also edited in the fact that I work in the Bay Area in the first sentence, so I realized I didn't mention it until the last.

replies(6): >>16409234 #>>16409259 #>>16409567 #>>16409837 #>>16410389 #>>16418210 #
ScottBurson ◴[] No.16409837[source]
I agree with you that the numbers are very skewed, but I agree with the parent in that, of the few outspoken conservatives I've worked with, I have not seen anyone's career suffer for their politics.
replies(2): >>16409924 #>>16410173 #
bsbechtel ◴[] No.16409924[source]
Brendan Eich, James Damore?
replies(3): >>16409987 #>>16409993 #>>16410182 #
1. utopcell ◴[] No.16409993[source]
Damore wasn't fired because he is a conservative. He was fired because he thinks women are inferior wrt tech and was very vocal about it.
replies(3): >>16411478 #>>16411851 #>>16412991 #
2. wyclif ◴[] No.16411478[source]
This is false. Damore did not get fired "because he thinks women are inferior" which is a simplistic, uninformed, and cartoonish version of the controversy. Damore was fired by Google for writing about scientifically supported sex differences and the social ramifications of those differences:

https://youtu.be/agU-mHFcXdw

replies(1): >>16413030 #
3. peoplewindow ◴[] No.16411851[source]
Sigh. As the sibling comment points out, what you are saying is not true. It is contradicted by the text of the memo itself. Moreover he wasn't "very vocal about it", he wrote a memo that was then deliberately leaked by his ideological opponents in order to destroy his career: successfully so.

Five years ago I felt my political views were pretty mainstream for the tech industry, for the Valley (although I did not live there). I'd have described myself as a centrist or maybe centre-left.

These days my views have shifted, I can feel myself getting more conservative with time. It's not an age thing. It's more that I've started to notice the sort of tactic you used above - faced with someone making conservative arguments you disagree with you didn't bother debating the points he made. Instead you just lied about what he said and then attacked a straw man.

This is consistently how Damore is treated. There are liberal arguments that can be made about what he wrote - people could point out methodological errors in his studies, or logic errors in his arguments. But they never seem to do that. Whether it's in the media (who love calling what he wrote an "anti diversity memo" even though it praises diversity and has ideas for how to increase the number of women in tech), or on Hacker News, the tactic is always the same - pretend he claimed women are worse than men and then viciously attack him on a personal level. And it's just totally false.

The same tactic crops up in other similar contexts. Jordan Peterson being interviewed on Channel 4 is a recent notorious example. The guy made debatable but essentially conservative arguments about how men and women are not the same, the gender pay gap has multiple causes and so on. And Cathy Newman (the interviewer), who clearly isn't really interviewing him at all but rather sees her job as destroying the ideological enemy, just constantly twists his words. The entire interview consists of her exclaiming, "So what you're saying is ..." followed by some absurd straw man that bore no resemblance to what the guy just said.

It got so insane that by the end of the interview, after Peterson made a long and complicated point about the biological roots of social hierarchies using the nervous system of lobsters as an example, she replied "So what you're saying is, we should organise our society along the lines of the lobsters" and the guy doesn't even blink or miss his stride. He just gets right on with correcting her, because by that point the lying and distorting of what he just said has become so predictable:

https://youtu.be/aMcjxSThD54?t=26m55s

It's one of the most astonishing TV interviews I've ever seen and that sort of debating "tactic" is everywhere.

replies(2): >>16413043 #>>16414139 #
4. orwellian ◴[] No.16412991[source]
You are spreading blatant lies and propaganda. Anyone who actually reads his memo knows he never said this, or anything close to it! He was trying to promote the use of scientific consensus on male-female personality differences to more effectively be inclusive of females in the tech world.

Does that sound unfamiliar? If so, it’s probably because you never read what he actually wrote, and instead just accepted unquestioning the media propaganda.

Many news sources also spread the same lie you are, so I assume you’re just parroting the headlines (like many of us are guilty of). The problem is, the dishonesty of this propaganda does real harm.

replies(1): >>16414676 #
5. salvar ◴[] No.16413030[source]
Brushing all of this off as "scientifically supported sex differences" is quite simplistic, uninformed, and cartoonish by itself.
replies(1): >>16418955 #
6. salvar ◴[] No.16413043[source]
I keep seeing this argument, and wonder if we read the same memo. And to mirror your view, I'm getting pretty tired of people just brushing off criticism of the memo as "Strawman! Fake news!" when it's anything but. I guess it's a successful tactic though.
replies(2): >>16414137 #>>16424515 #
7. peoplewindow ◴[] No.16414137{3}[source]
Perhaps you posted elsewhere in the thread, but do you have any substantial criticism? I mean, beyond "that's a cartoonish view", which isn't really helpful to informed debate?
replies(1): >>16414376 #
8. utopcell ◴[] No.16414139[source]
It is not a political view to support that women are inferior, wrt tech, at Google.

Whether he may be a conservative or liberal is irrelevant to me and to the discussion.

replies(1): >>16419866 #
9. salvar ◴[] No.16414376{4}[source]
I'm very sorry for not being helpful enough for you when I quoted the argument of another comment.
replies(1): >>16419912 #
10. TheCoelacanth ◴[] No.16414676[source]
There was a detailed investigation into his firing by the NLRB that found that he was not fired for having conservative views, but rather for having the potential to cause a hostile workplace for his suggestion that the difference in employment might be due to inherent biological differences between sexes.
replies(4): >>16415817 #>>16416042 #>>16416064 #>>16416094 #
11. ◴[] No.16415817{3}[source]
12. ◴[] No.16416042{3}[source]
13. ◴[] No.16416064{3}[source]
14. orwellian ◴[] No.16416094{3}[source]
* Climate change isn’t a liberal fact vs some conservative alternate truth; climate change is a scientific fact.

* Evolution isn’t an atheist fact vs some religious alternate truth; evolution is a scientific fact.

* Personality differences (note: not to be confused with IQ or proficiency!) between male and female isn’t a conservative fact vs some liberal alternate; it’s a scientific fact.

Damore suggested we use these well established cross cultural personality differences to inspire positive improvements to the workplace that will allow women and men alike to more naturally be attracted to this line of work, and to thrive in it!

But because the scientifically uncontrovertial truths he quoted to formulate his argument are not currently considered “politically correct”, he was basically “crucified” and made an example of.

Scientific consensus is not conservative or liberal, religious or atheist, etc. Scientific consensus is the best unbiased reflection of reality we have.

Of course, any use of the words “fact” or “truth” must be qualified with the appropriate level of uncertainty — not even the best scientific establishments can reach fully 100% confidence — but may established scientific “facts” are called such because our uncertainty levels of them can become so incredibly low. The law of gravity, the claim that the world is not flat, and many others are clear examples of this.

We MUST stop politicizing the notion of “fact”, unless you really want to enter a post-truth world where unjustified opinions and feelings hold equal truth to scientific facts established with literal mountains of evidence and broad consensus.

If observing scientific fact creates a “hostile workplace” and is a fireable offense, then we have truly entered an Orwellian age of Wrongthink and Thoughtcrime, where we must all constantly police our own thoughts and utterance so as not to contradict the ideology of The Party.

He wasn’t even quoting scientific fact for hostile purposes; it appears entirely benevolently motivated, out of a desire to create an engineering culture more compatible with feminine personalities (which even many males have, as he points out!)

But because it touched a topic of political sensitivity and quotes a scientific fact that was “politically incorrect”, the truth of his argument, and even the well intentions of it, were made irrelevant. He was crucified, to make an example to all of what truths must never be spoken.

And this is why we can’t have nice things. Now we can’t even speak about making the workplace more suitable to women, because to discuss that would imply that there’s a difference in personality between women and men — and such a thing now can get you fired.

replies(1): >>16416544 #
15. sctb ◴[] No.16416544{4}[source]
Please stop deleting and reposting comments.
replies(1): >>16422038 #
16. wyclif ◴[] No.16418955{3}[source]
Brushing all of what off? The controversy itself? No, that's not what I did at all. I recognise that it's controversial; I simply don't think most people commenting on it have read Damore's memo, especially if "women are inferior to men" is the mangled message they managed to extract from his writings.
17. peoplewindow ◴[] No.16419866{3}[source]
But he didn't argue that, did he? Can you give a quote from the memo that makes you think Damore argued or believes that?
18. peoplewindow ◴[] No.16419912{5}[source]
Right - that's a no, then.

I described the argument as a straw man because it is one. Damore verifiably did not say he thought women at Google were inferior. I'm not surprised you're tired of people saying "straw man!" in discussions about Damore: as I note, nobody seems to be able to argue that he's wrong, so they just attack things he didn't say, and then other people have to point that out. If you dislike that, then point out strawmen yourself. Perhaps eventually people who dislike Damore's perspective will then stop strawmanning him.

19. orwellian ◴[] No.16422038{5}[source]
Sorry about that. I had some typos I was trying to correct but the edit feature wasn’t working (it submitted with no error, but nothing changed).
20. Veelox ◴[] No.16424515{3}[source]
I think part of the problem with the memo is that it was written for an audience that was unbiased, not for a hostile audience. This means that when you read it after here how bad it was, you brain is primed to pick up on the phrases that are directly or indirectly offensive to women and you skip over all the qualifiers. If you pretty much agree with the basic premise you miss the offensive stuff and notice all of the qualifiers.

It reminds me of all of the issues in the Ferguson shooting. Instantly we had "Hands up, Don't shoot" and "Criminal" being called by both sides. The stuff that is divisive goes viral and people on both sides shout about it.

Alas, because it was imperfectly said by Damore, it is no longer safe to openly discuss if the gender gap in tech might be influenced by biology.