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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
I don't even see how my post is an opposing view. The first two sentences are statements of fact. I'd argue that the third sentence is also a fact, but I'll accept that not everyone believes it.
I honestly don't get what people disagreed with, I was just attempting to correct some of the factual errors that people had been making all over this comment section.
Edit: Ah, I see that the person I responded to edited their post from "Brandon" to the correct, "Brendan".
You're right. All statements of fact. Very mysterious down-voting.
I guess I used the term "opposing view" as a catch all for something that people seem to disagree with. It appeared that people disagreed with you since you got down-voted. I didn't mean to incorrectly represent your post but I guess I did accidentally.
>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.
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.
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.
Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way?
I have mixed feelings over the way he was treated, but your argument actually seems the opposite of nuanced: the blanket claim that someone should never be fired for their political views (particularly, from a public position where their politics could have an effect on the company they represent both on internal culture and on externalities like boycotts), no matter how repugnant their politics are, seems pretty reductive.
The problem was that people were using Mozilla as a punching bag for their disillusionment with Eich.
My favourite example was OkCupid, who detected you were using firefox and redirected you to a page telling you to use a different browser. Despite several gay developers saying that their experience at Mozilla wasn't oppressed by Eich.
But the kicker was that after OkCupid got what they wanted (and got a ton of good press), they didn't revert the damage they did to the Mozilla brand. They won, but I visited their site with firefox and chrome, and there was no redirect to a page saying "hey, mozilla is cool, you should use them [again|still]".
They weren't actually interested in reform, just in shouting and winning, and damn who they damage in the process.
I remember months after Eich resigned I was looking at new phones and I asked the salesperson if FirefoxOS was compatible with their network. She said she didn't support Mozilla because of how they had acted towards the LGBT community and that Android was the open and respectful platform I was looking for. It was very forceful, and it was clear that any further discussion of FirefoxOS meant I was a bad person.
It was so bizarre I didn't even engage on the topic, she didn't even realize they had won. She was on the clock at work representing her company, she even was training another employee. It was so unexpected that I didn't realize what had happened until it was over.
>Question: if it came out that Eich had donated to, say, the KKK, would you feel the same way?
Yep. Although that would be a much higher "this won't affect his job performance" bar than Eich's anti-gay marriage stance, which passed that bar because his was a purely religious stance and pretty clearly didn't imply personal or professional animosity toward homosexuals (amidst all the flak I never read a single anecdote about him mistreating a gay person, and you'd be damn sure that would have surfaced).
The KKK is a hate group, and so he'd have to demonstrate somehow that he was no longer personally or professionally hateful. That would only be possible if someone was truly reformed, a la Edward Norton in American History X.
...seems the opposite of nuanced...
The nuance is that humans are not built to defend the rights of their enemies, but that is precisely what consistency demands, what I did, and am doing now.
I believe strongly in defending rights regardless of content. I am a strong backer of the ACLU, for example, especially when they defend the rights of a group like the KKK. I think that doing so makes a much stronger statement in support of those rights than defending someone you agree with.
This is the nuance you talk up? Silly. You're flattering yourself. I believe the above and yet don't think Eich was wronged. Maybe that's too nuanced a position for you.
That's a hard question. Not so much because of anything related to politics, but because I get stuck thinking about actual murders committed by the KKK.
If instead you asked about something like a US neo-nazi group I would be much more tolerant of people giving money to a terrible group like that in a way completely unrelated to their job.
The reason the situation is tricky, I think, is because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life. Even though I can't think of any reason they should. I can't think of any major downsides from letting people have work and personal life be separate.
I can't tell if you think that's good or bad, but I disagree. The workplace environment still enforces certain kinds of behavior at work, and the public environment still enforces behavior in that environment. Each kind of social pressure is only weakened slightly by being unable to cross over.
Given how readily abused it is, it seems unwise. It's one of those things that works great... so long as it's only used by good people to do good things.
You know, for whatever local definitions of "good person" and "good thing" crop up today.
> because jobs with a spokesperson aspect blend work and personal life.
I wonder how many of the people shouting "freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom from consequences" vis-a-vis the separation of work and personal life would have held the same viewpoint in defense of the impeachment of Bill Clinton for his affair with Monica Lewinski.
The thing that didn't bother me about the Clinton/Lewinski thing is that, in my opinion, having an extramarital affair doesn't necessarily affect your job. But then again, if being viewed as an adulterer means that you can't get your job done properly as President, then that is a problem.
In the case of Eich, I was a bit more torn: being the CEO of an organization that prides itself on its openness and general "social good" means that your social views should match that of the organization. Or at least there shouldn't be any glaring mismatches.
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?
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.
I have no idea what your supposedly nuanced position is nor whether I would agree with it, but in my experience a person who would claim in a public forum that his position is just too intelligent for other people is unlikely to hold an intelligent position and is 50% likely to be wrong.
So let's hear you're incredibly nuanced position. I'm waiting to have my mind blown!
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.
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.
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...
This is an odd view. Right wing politics in the US claims to lean toward reducing/dismantling SS and the welfare state, radically changing immigration and education policy. (In reality they are prevented from doing this, of course.) In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
That's not quite it. They're also perceived to be for the expansion of government, more spying, less local and state autonomy, fewer guns, more regulation of businesses, more taxes, more diversity, more equal redistribution of wealth, and less prosecution of criminals.
(Now, we'll ignore that on at least the last three points, that's patently false, because their supporters and backers have no interest in such things.)
The thing that is probably biggest difference, though, is the way the two sides' members treat each other. I'd say that the right-wing folks view the other side with fear, because they're worried that they'll ruin everything. Their talking heads tend to treat the left with outright hostility and use very nationalistic notes and basically try to show that while they are the enemy, they are a legitimate enemy.
The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt, as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman. Their talking heads tend to appeal to how smart the reader/viewer is for following the party line, and espouse philosophies that require a strict adherence to lest one be considered ignorant and hence non-left.
It's hard to side with the left, for me anyways, because they seem to encourage a sort of arbitrary and baseless smugness I've never seen in the right. And that's unfortunate, because change is needed and some of their positions are unquestionably correct.
> The left seems to view the opposition as backwards and deserving of contempt,
> as a group of bumpkins and idiots and sometimes subhuman.
This.
John Oliver, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert each have an amazing ability to use humor/satire as a way to make a point. But I can't hardly watch This Week Tonight without feeling like he's portraying "the other side" in exactly this light. And it's a gimmick. A cheap way to put your viewpoint on display without actually lending any credence to anything your opponent would say (would it be fair to call this tactic an Ad Hominem?).
The sad part is, I get the impression that the generation who are now in their 20's and 30's have grown up knowing only this kind of "political discourse". They don't recognize that by sheltering their ideas from opposition in this way their viewpoints remain intellectually weak and stunted.
"radically changing immigration and education policy." => "making it so that the current demographic makeup doesn't change that much". Right-wing reforms of this kind aren't about the legislative change, but about keeping society itself relatively unchanged. Rate of reform isn't calculated in number of laws passed, but in the societal effects of those laws.
When right wing types poison-pilled Bush's amnesty bill, they didn't try to protect the current democratic makeup. They merely tried to shift the balance of new immigrants to be more conservative (more educated, more Eastern Europe, less Mexico). And again, reducing dependency on the state and radically changing the education system is hardly a matter of preserving things the way they are.
Put it this way - given a choice, which would you prefer? Allow no new laws to be passed for 8 years, or give Republicans an 8 year supermajority and a mandate to make any changes they liked? If you are right that they merely want to keep things static, you should be indifferent.
> Right wing politics in the US claims to lean toward reducing/dismantling SS and the welfare state, radically changing immigration and education policy.
That's not generally true. Right wing politics usually claims its for the first two things, and one form of the last, but generally opposes substantial reforms of immigration policy in favor of more stringent enforcement of existing laws.
> In contrast, left wing politicians just want to throw more money at the same things.
Incorrect. "Liberal" politicians in the US favor substantial reforms to immigration policy, healthcare policy (though perhaps less so at the moment, given that they recently achieved a fairly major restructuring in that domain, though there are plenty that would drive further), and, in many cases, reforms to the structure of SS, welfare state systems, and taxation structure. In a very different direction than right-wing politicians seek to change them.
"My side favors [nuanced, detailed presentation of my faction's views], while the other side favors [simplistic nonsense presented as the other side's view]."
The only problem with this theory is that the right wing is not "my side". Browse my history - you'll see me favoring things like open borders while opposing nationalism and religion. Kind of the opposite of what I said right wing sorts favor. Similarly, I described Modi as favoring big change, but that doesn't mean I support Hindutva (I'm a non-Hindu foreigner, that would be pretty silly).
I'm a left winger who takes the stated basic principles of the old left (individual rights, equal treatment), and I eschew the cognitive dissonance necessary to support every left leaning special interest group. I.e., I'm a heretic, not an infidel.
I agree that it's incorrect to say that right wing politics are specifically about maintaining the status quo, but that does tend to be the effect of their policies, regardless of how much they change the law "lines of code" style, as pointed out by a sibling post.
But what right wing politics are about is maintaining the social order. Ensuring that wealth stays with the wealthy, power remains with the powerful, and making people content with both their own place in society and the places of others (particularly their 'betters'). Dismantling SS, keeping illegal immigrants illegal, cheap, and vulnerable as well as avoiding a flood of legal immigrants who will take 'native' jobs, and controlling education policy all achieve these goals. As does advocating for less progressive taxes to avoid distribution of wealth away from top earners.
Making right wing politics all about shrinking government is putting the cart before the horse. Shrinking government is not in itself a useful goal, it's the outcomes of that shrinkage, and what you shrink, that are the goal. Starving the beast is just how you get there.
On the contrary, right wing politics seem to be about replacing the current social order. Currently academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents. This is the status quo.
Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers, business leaders and those who embody traditional christian values. That's a real change in the status quo.
Your description of reality here is almost diametrically opposed to any reality I've ever experienced. The idea that elevating business leaders and people with christian values is something that alters the status quo, in particular, seems particularly absurd -- their influence on the social order is practically apex.
I'd also be really curious to hear why you think they're in support of 'workers', to which I assume you mean something different from a normal definition of 'working class'. I'm not really aware of any right wing political policy that works in their favour.
But all of that aside, you again conflate changing the status quo with changing the social order. Obviously the right wing seeks some kind of change in the status quo (else why organize at all), but that change is to reinforce the social order or establish one that is in line with their views. The fact that you're talking about elevating a particular class of people is in itself a right wing, social-order oriented, concept.
Left wing politics are generally about dismantling social order altogether -- not just the current one, but the very existence of one. You can easily argue about how successful they've been, especially in the more radical efforts, but that remains their pie-in-the-sky goal. You may also argue with the idea that such a thing is even possible. That is itself a right wing axiom.
> academics, teachers and other govt bureaucrats occupy a strong position in the social order
Those are some of the least paid and least powerful professions in society. Academics just have loud voices that no one listens to.
> Right wing politics wants to reduce the position of those groups and elevate the position of workers
That's why the right wing supports increasing the minimum wage, unions, and regulating industry exploitation of employees. /sarcasm. The left wing has pretty much been pro-workers since the left wing was invented in 1789 France.
"Currently [...] teachers [...] occupy a strong position in the social order. So do government dependents." [Emphasis added]
Interesting --maybe I'm misunderstanding your claim. Can you clarify what you mean by "occupy a strong position in the social order", and outline your evidence for such a belief?
Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are. Consider the difficulty in reducing dependency programs (e.g., SS, Medicare) - these are political non-starters due to old people voting.
On the cultural front, note how difficult it is even to criticize teachers or government dependents. Consider the media reaction when Romney correctly pointed out that about half the population is at least partly dependent on the government, or how right wing politicians are described as "attacking" teachers when they propose anything the educational establishment dislikes.
Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
> Witness how difficult and ineffective policies to ensure accountability for teachers and eliminate the bad ones are.
I've yet to see any policy sold under that banner that had any reason to believe it would achieve that end: all have either been proposals to increase the degree of arbitrary latitude granted elected politicians and appointed administrators and/or policies imposing measures as standards that have no demonstrated validity as measuring teacher performance as distinct from other factors that might affect the students in that teacher's classroom, including (particularly) the degree of administrative support for that teacher. Usually, most proposals have included both of those features.
I haven't opposed them because teachers oppose them -- though no doubt they do -- I oppose them because I am opposed to wasting public money on measures that have no rational expectation of success and I am opposed to decreasing accountability for school administrators.
> Or think for a moment about any policy which might reduce the status of either group - for example, partially replacing teachers with machines, or shaming people on welfare. How do you think such a policy would be received?
The latter with well-deserved derision from much of the public (and plenty of support from most of the right, probably), the former would depend on the specifics -- plenty of functions teachers have done have been partially replaced by machines over the years with broad support.
Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services.
I'm sure many people of a certain ideological stripe feel as though they're somehow self-reliant and do not rely on anything any level of government provides, but that does not mesh with reality.
As for shaming people on welfare, I'm again unsure which country you're describing. First, "welfare" (i.e. as a cash grant) hasn't existed in the U.S. in close to 20 years. Second, people who do receive some sort of subsidized food or housing are very nearly universally looked down upon. They're not held in any esteem whatsoever now. Do you think it would be reasonable, or make any kind of policy sense, to shame them further? If so, why?
Very nearly 100% of the people living within U.S. borders are dependent on the government, whether in the form of tax subsidies or use of government-built services.
He means net payments to/from the government, not using the roads.
It is my understanding that Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) is a cash benefit. Do you not consider TANF in the U.S. to be "welfare" in the form of a cash grant?
Ah ok, thank you. If I understood correctly, you take "occupy a strong position in the social order" to mean a group's strong enfranchisement and entrenchement, up to the point of closure within the political culture (in the Almond-Verba technical sense of the term).
My only quibble with treating "welfare recipients" as a group is it conflates two quite heterogeneous groups of people: seniors/retirees in one hand, and disabled people plus medicaid/food aid/SCHIP recipients on the other. The former do account for the majority of welfare spending and quite justifiably fit (my understanding of) your definition of "strong position in the social order" in the sense of strong enfranchisement; but the latter hardly do.
I am not sure which country you're describing. To say that "government dependents" "occupy a strong position in the social order" does not accurately describe the U.S. in any meaningful way.
There is a reason why I explicitly pointed out I was discussing the US. I'm pretty explicitly sticking to places I'm familiar with (USA, India).
But right wing types elsewhere in the world (e.g., Modi) are not exactly looking to preserve the status quo either. Hindutva (probably spelled wrong) is hardly about preserving the status quo, nor is economic liberalization, getting closer to the west or "toilets before temples".
"It's worth remembering that one disadvantage left-side politics have is that they are defending the status quo, and mounting such a defense is trench warfare, not a campaign that captures the hearts and minds of the next generation. By comparison, right-side politics are passionate for change. And it's when people are passionate that they get into disagreement. But because the right is so far away from achieving its goals, the passions inside the movement aren't as heated. Also, the right tends to be suspicious of political correctness and ideological litmus tests."
I suspect if you hung around Americans for Tax Reform, Heritage, Family Research Council, Eagle Forum, etc. for a while, you'd find that they want to overturn the status quo on taxes (perhaps a flat tax), government spending (reduce significantly), third-tier government agencies not mentioned in the Constitution (abolish), abortion (overturn Roe v. Wade), obscenity and indecency (remember the horror called the Communications Decency Act?), religion (erode church/state barrier), United Nations (get U.S. out, or reduce dues), federal regulations (dramatically roll back), Obamacare (repeal), Second Amendment (enforce RTKBA post-Heller), voter ID, marriage, home schooling (defend), public schools (vouchers), and so on.
Look at the 1968 Democratic Party platform. It talked about Head Start, Upward Bound, more federal spending on education, Medicare expansion, creating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, more regulation of industry, increasing Social Security spending, etc. [http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=29604]. It's been nearly half a century since then, and all those policies have been enshrined into law; the question today is not whether to eliminate them, but how much budgets will increase year-over-year.
Right-wing politics in the US say they want this, but actual right-wing behaviour has been to increase government spending significantly.
In any case, most of items in that paragraph are about rolling back progressive changes, rather than introducing new items. When I say 'status quo', I don't mean 'preserve a snapshot of modern society in January 2015', but returning society to an earlier version, and preventing social flux in order to keep it that way.
Each side has their own circular firing squad. Examples: Republicans sniping at each other and calling each other a RINO (Republican In Name Only), the Tea Party primarying mainstream politicians for not being conservative enough, etc.
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).
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.
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.
I think that's more the fact that any leftists you can get to stay in a room together for five minutes without tearing each others throats out, will by necessity be ideologically consistent with each other.
I'm leftist, but I'm also pro-gun (how else to overthrow the ruling class, after all), and I think there are probably some innate gender differences in humans, much like there are in e.g. Sumatran orangutans. I wouldn't last two minutes in deBoer's class, and while I'm leftist, I could never be an ally of The Left.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>You should be able to identify them by a pattern of harmful actions.
Not if they are specifically hiding those actions from people that would recognize them as harmful.
>If you haven't observed their harmful actions or those supposed actions' effects, you're acting irrationally and going on witchhunts.
I don't know why you're making a narrative about witch hunts. The original statement was that it's bad when people keep biases but don't discuss them anywhere they might be corrected. Denouncing hiding is pretty much the opposite of going on a witch hunt.
It's the part where, having not seen public evidence of the behavior, you are still concerned that somewhere at midnight vigils and seances they are practicing their evil racist ways, and that "Something be done!".
Racism in and of itself is a quirk, and if you can't prove that others are actually harming people with it, you shouldn't begrudge other people their opinions--even if you don't like them.
For example, donating to a hate-driven campaign to take fundamental rights away from people by popular vote. They could very easily say they donated from a basis different from the hateful people and avoid losing friends over a misunderstanding.
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.
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.
My reaction to Gamergate was to continue playing video games and to continue not reading 'Games Journalism' because I already knew it was payola garbage. As for your friends my suggestion would be to discuss other shared interests. It's possible - even common - for both 'sides' of an issue to be way off the mark.
So, first off, there are some very interesting bits of "Games Journalism" or even just mild-mannered industry publications (Gamasutra et al) who are still quite worth reading even despite the GamerGate nonsense.
Second and more importantly, it's now in some third or later phase where frankly things have extended quite beyond just games. Both friends spend a lot of time online reading blogs, reading essays, and basically being literate on digital culture. That being the case, avoiding the ripples and crazy of that whole fiasco is hard.
There's a fascinating de facto trial of the limits of free speech in the age of mass point-to-point communication, and if you just stick your head in the sand because of GG you're going to be missing a lot.
My opinion on the matter is that if someone can say the phrase "ethics in video game journalism" with a straight face, it's time to abandon the conversation...
> 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.
I was once labeled an "MRA" for suggesting sexual assault (or worse) and IPV statistics might be more balanced between different genders if the data collection efforts weren't skewed so far toward a single gender.
I used to be a lot more idealistic, but ideologues broke me of that faulty thinking.
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.
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.
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.
I suspect a big part of it is being in an echo-chamber of people who have almost the exact same set of beliefs, which are then contrasted with the more extreme opposite beliefs. This creates a rather simplistic (and therefore desirable) us vs. them dynamic.
I've experienced this as conservative christian, and I only realized how black and white my world-view had become once I 'got out'.
I could be wrong though. I generally avoid these 'communities' for the reason the author describes.
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.
If you think I haven't heard this argument multiple times you're very wrong. It's well known in certain circles that this is the _correct_ view of the situation and you're not the first to graciously assume I simply haven't been exposed to it.
On this point we disagree, and my post is about what happens when we disagree, that it's not OK for me to disagree. That it's wrong, fundamentally wrong, so wrong it can only be due to stupidity or bigotry on my part.
Really I just have different views of what it means to be inclusive.
In the past 25 years I've seen an absolutely huge amount of compromise coming from mainstream America and the Christians especially when it comes to the LGBT community. I don't think it's too much to ask that when Eich was sitting there waiting at the negotiating table that the LGBT community would at least show up and try to find a compromise.
This wasn't a Bible-thumper screaming "you're all going to hell!!!" It was the CEO of a very important Open Source project saying "Let's sit down and talk, I'm willing to put in the time and energy to work this out." But the torches had been lit, the pitchforks sharpened, and the rest is history.
Regarding finding a compromise, I'm sure if Eich donated to equal rights after becoming CEO, nobody would have any qualms working for his organization anymore. Even the pitchforks and the most bloodthirsty protesters would likely have gone. That he didn't even try to correct the issue made it more likely that progressive coders would turn away.
The depth of the thread seems to have reached a HN limit, so I can't respond, but you're now confusing Eich's treatment with whether he should be CEO of Mozilla. Eich in a non-coding role is not worth X coders moving to a competing browser for any X greater than 0. Being inclusive to employees is a separate issue from making employees actually want to work for him. A CEO who has worked to set up Sharia law will have a hard time getting people who support women's rights working for him even if he treats his own women employees fairly.
So he was being publicly shamed and humiliated until he A) was fired B) resigned or C) renounced his personal beliefs? That's horrible. When gay people are treated this way I speak out and say it's wrong. When gay people treat people this way I speak out and say it's wrong.
> That he didn't even try to correct the issue made it more likely that progressive coders would turn away.
And it would take a lot of "progressive coders" to make up for Mozilla losing its CEO/co-founder who had been working on Firefox since it was called Netscape Navigator and who just happened to be the creator of JavaScript.
He was shamed for having shameful views, yes. "Personal beliefs" isn't a get-out-of-public-reproach-free card.
No one was compelled by any force of law here, either--he had beliefs that no longer meshed with contemporary views on equality and rights, and his peers, subordinates, and the world at large made it clear they didn't deem this appropriate.
> Q: Was Brendan Eich forced out by employee pressure?
> A: No. Mozilla employees expressed a wide range of views on Brendan’s appointment as CEO: the majority of them positive and in support of his leadership, or expressing disappointment in Brendan’s support of Proposition 8 but that they nonetheless felt he would be a good leader for Mozilla. A small number (fewer than 10) called for his resignation, none of whom reported to Brendan directly. However media coverage focused disproportionately on the small number of negative comments — largely ignoring the wide range of reactions across the Mozilla community.
That's horrible. When gay people are treated this way I speak out and say it's wrong. When gay people treat people this way I speak out and say it's wrong.
I think it's a little hard to make this comparison. Eich's position was in favor of taking away the rights of others. I'm fine with people having views I don't agree with, until those views affect others negatively.
> Regarding finding a compromise, I'm sure if Eich donated to equal rights after becoming CEO, nobody would have any qualms working for his organization anymore. Even the pitchforks and the most bloodthirsty protesters would likely have gone. That he didn't even try to correct the issue
Eich contributed to the creation of the equal rights policy in Mozilla and worked to enforce that inclusive policy. He made a commitment to uphold those policies. No GLBT person at Mozila had examples of him being discriminatory.
Quoting from my previous post: "A CEO who has worked to set up Sharia law will have a hard time getting people who support women's rights working for him even if he treats his own women employees fairly."
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.
If the issue with Eich was supposed to be about whether or not he was inclined to lead an inclusive Mozilla apparently looked to as a standard bearer not only for open/progressive technical values but open/progressive social values... who's more incredible naive?
The person who considers Eich's political donation to Prop 8 as a conclusive indicator he couldn't do that?
Or the person who considers his long history there as a more relevant, legible, and likely conclusive signal about how he would have run the Mozilla he helped build?
(Also, when people are constructing these ostensibly parallel hypotheticals, why does some equivalent of the latter always seem to get left out?)
In other words, you're saying that you and the engineers you know would not be even a little more likely to give your time to another organization instead of the one that appointed the person who amended the Constitution to keep blacks in the back of the bus. Fair enough. It doesn't match what I've seen, which is why I believe that organization would be in trouble. The only way to know for sure is to run a poll of software engineers.
At another point, you confuse inclusiveness towards employees vs. making employees actually want to work there. The latter is the issue. You can have an organization head work towards setting up Sharia law but treat women fairly in his workplace. That won't mean that people who support women's rights will work for him when they have plenty of other options to choose from.
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.
As an employee of a company, you are not entitled to take down the company for your views. You are entitled to your views, but not to that job.
In your scenario, Rosa Parks is not naïve. She would be naïve if she assumed she were entitled to run the bus company. By fixing all bus companies from the outside, she was shrewd (or in her telling, simply too tired to comply).
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.