SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
National Journal's Rebecca Nelson reports about the Republicans lurking in the shadows of the Bay Area:
Deep in Silicon Valley, where the free market reigns and the exchange of ideas is celebrated, a subset of tech workers are hiding their true selves.
They're the tech company employees, startup founders, and CEOs who vote for and donate to Republican candidates, bucking the Bay Area's liberal supremacy. Fearing the repercussions of associating with a much-maligned minority, they keep their political views fiercely hidden.
The consequences for being outed for conservative views can be dire. In a highly public controversy last year, newly-hired Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich stepped down after critics attacked his 2008 donation to support Proposition 8, the anti-same-sex marriage law in California. Eich, who declined to comment for this story, faced an internal uprising from within the Mozilla community, as well as boycotts from other tech companies, and quit after just two weeks on the job.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:22AM
Social Justice Warriors prove you wrong.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:34PM
Bullshit, you don't get much more authoritarian than SJWs. Being a liberal isn't about having progressive ideas, it's about being liberal [wikipedia.org]. People who tell you what to think fall well outside that category.
(Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:42PM
Whether that's right or not depends on who you're calling SJWs.
One group is people that believe that women & darker-skinned people should also have the option of playing a character physically similar to themselves in more games just like white dudes do, or that we should try to avoid using category terms as insults (like calling someone a fag, nigger or retard), things like that. Generally just basic "everyone should get this option and have this respect" stuff, in other words, stuff going back a few decades now.
A year ago, that's where I would have stopped, because I'd never encountered the small but growing percentage of people in a newer category.
The other, newer group is people that apparently believe nothing that even potentially distresses or disturbs particular groups of people should be allowed or tolerated. The reaction by the 'regulars' to this comment at We Hunted The Mammoth [wehuntedthemammoth.com] is a good example.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:43PM
women & darker-skinned people should also have the option of playing a character physically similar to themselves in more games just like white dudes do
I'd refer you to the study where players don't actually care about this. They don't identify *as* their character, and are indifferent to the appearance. It's a different mental pathway making agreement between player's and character's appearance irrelevant. Notice also that most games don't even have an identifiable player character, or include fantasy creatures which don't exist. Furthermore, it's up to the creators of those games what kinds of characters they want to make available. If there's a demand for something, it'll get made. If not, not. And how you go about advocating for this is important too. It's not helpful to bully devs into conforming to your specific artistic or political vision. And no one is trying to stop anyone from making whatever type of content they want to make. If you really want something bad enough that doesn't exist, make it yourself, it's never been easier.
avoid using category terms as insults (like calling someone a fag, nigger or retard)
Is a free speech issue. I avoid using such language, but if someone wants to call you a niggerfaggot the correct response is to laugh or mute their mic if you're that triggered by sounds coming from another mammal's face-hole.
"everyone should get this option and have this respect"
No one deserves or is entitled to respect by default. That would require you to be able to dictate to me how I am supposed to think, feel, and speak. You don't have those powers over me, and I don't have them over you. This is a fundamentally good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:16PM
> I'd refer you to the study where players don't actually care about this.
You would huh? that's why you haven't actually provided a citation for it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:29PM
http://www.digra.org/wp-content/uploads/digital-library/11313.28005.pdf [digra.org]
Do you need a spoon also?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:17PM
One group is people that believe that women & darker-skinned people should also have the option of playing a character physically similar to themselves in more games just like white dudes do, or that we should try to avoid using category terms as insults (like calling someone a fag, nigger or retard), things like that. Generally just basic "everyone should get this option and have this respect" stuff, in other words, stuff going back a few decades now.
Your opinions don't make you a SJW, your actions do. This is a strawman argument. Here [knowyourmeme.com] is the definition in case you can't use search engines or something.
A year ago, that's where I would have stopped, because I'd never encountered the small but growing percentage of people in a newer category.
SJWs are neither new, nor small. The term itself is new, but the practice isn't.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:36PM
The single, lone type of comment I've seen that gets somebody called an "SJW" is one that talks bad about whites/males/heterosexuals; literally nothing else draws that label.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:28PM
How many people have Social Justice Warriors killed? How many have they threatened to kill?
That to me is a basic test of the morality of an ideology: If an ideology involves a desire to kill a lot of people, then it is almost definitely evil.
Social Justice Warriors can be annoying, they've gotten people fired or otherwise in professional trouble, and they've tried to pass laws that require bigots to do things they don't want to do. They might also be taking advantage of concern trolling to rack in some easy cash. But that's not the same as, say, putting together a signature campaign to pass a law that states that all homosexuals will rounded up and killed without trial.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:47PM
How many have they threatened to kill?
Well, half the human race, by one measure. [salon.com]
But it's OK, they're only promoting genocide ironically.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:38PM
Ending slavery and segregation was a good thing.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @06:00AM
How many people have Social Justice Warriors killed? How many have they threatened to kill?
That to me is a basic test of the morality of an ideology: If an ideology involves a desire to kill a lot of people, then it is almost definitely evil.
"How many people have child rapists killed? How many have they threatened to kill?" Just because a practice doesn't push people to a particular extreme doesn't it's not harmful.
Social Justice Warriors can be annoying, they've gotten people fired or otherwise in professional trouble, and they've tried to pass laws that require bigots to do things they don't want to do.
Everyone deserves equal protection from unjustified attacks, especially the most "vile and evil" [youtube.com].