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: 4, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:11AM
I think the reason talking about politics (and religion) has historically been taboo is because people internally know that their opinions are not grounded on as firm a base as they would like, but don't want that found out. (I also think that those who loudly and identify with a political label tend to have even less-well-grounded opinions.) If you think that you expressing something about your political views will cause issues in the workplace, then either there are problems with your views or there are problems with the workplace. It was not the expressing /per se/ that is the problem.
I sneer at such taboos, and think that the immaturity of thinking you have to maintain them is unprofessional.
You apparently disagree. I welcome insights into the reasons you believe a contrary view (you may start by addressing the question I open with). After this exchange, you know more about me, I know more about you, everyone else knows more about both of us - how is that not beneficial? (OK, it might also be mind-numbingly boring, but nobody's forced to read what we write.) You might just say "for an easy life" or "to not rock the boat", that's a perfectly justifiable reason (but they probably point at problems with the workplace).
After the recent local elections here, I breached that taboo, and asked many of my friends (I'd only been here a couple of years, so much was still unknown about them) how they'd voted. Without pause, they *all* happily admitted to voting for the independent coallition which I had also voted for. No taboo, and attaboys all round when we realised that despite having met in contexts unrelated to politics, we shared common ground there too.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 5, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:25AM
I disagree. It is well possible to work productively with colleagues having fundamentally different world-views than me. What matters is the work performance. If we start discussing our world-views, even if we are mature about it, it is a distraction, and especially if we take our views serious, it will be very hard to blend them out in future encounters. The distraction is not caused by the different world views /per se/, but by bringing these differences into focus. We are all humans, and we are - however mature we consider ourselves - prone to distractions. Personally, I think I can handle most world views with tolerance, but there might be exceptions.
Of course you could argue that working with colleagues with different world views should be considered a problem, but that would complicate the job-search immensely because one has to discuss all possible work-unrelated topics prior to accepting a job offer. Considering two groups, one acting that way, another focusing on work-related topics only, I'm convinced the latter would win in a competition.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:34PM
I do. I'm, in imprecise terms, a metaller, and I sneer at the inanity of modern dance music. So if music comes up in the work place, and a workmate owns up to liking such music and going out clubbing, and thinking that metal is stupid noisy shit, which is mostly true, then will it be hard to blend that out in future encounters?
Why should politics be any different from music?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:57PM
I guess this could be generalized to all topics outside work scope and beyond small-talk. I would usually consider it OK to probe a bit in any topic, and if we are in agreement we can meet for a coffee and a social circlejerk, or even some exchange of information and new aspects. Maybe, if the differences are manageable, there can even be a valuable and fruitful discussion, but any not work-related heated argument imo has to be kept out of work.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Friday April 10 2015, @12:41AM
Why should politics be any different from music?
I think that generally, most people have stronger feelings about politics than they do about music. Political parties pander to specific worldviews, and most people latch onto the message that resonates the most with them emotionally. Political decisions can effect massive changes in the world around us. Music is music. Metal is one of my favorite families of music, but what does that say about how I view the world? I think that it says a lot less than if I was making rabidly pro-Socialism or staunchly Tea Party Republican comments at work. To me, my choice of music is like my choice of clothing colors. My wearing a green shirt doesn't imply that I think the blue shirt you're wearing is wrong. Metal doesn't imply that bluegrass is wrong. It's a much stronger statement to identify as a registered Democrat or a capital-A Atheist than as a fan of electronic dance music.
(Score: 2) by arslan on Friday April 10 2015, @02:49AM
Because politics and religion, in general, has a higher degree of attachment to people than music. My encounter with people whose affinity with music is so strong that their opinion on it can potentially create conflict at the workplace is much much smaller than say politics and religion. Anecdotal of course.
Not everything falls under the same bucket. Some non-work stuff are suitable for pantry talk, some are not.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Monday April 13 2015, @07:07PM
Bumper stickers, tattoos - which do you consider more permanent?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:30AM
I was also surprised at the idea that discussing politics could somehow be unprofessional. If you like your workplace and the people you work with, you will become friends with some of your co-workers, even if the friendship remains within the work context. Over coffee, at lunch, on business trips you will have time for small talk. After you get tired of talking about the weather, politics is a pretty natural topic.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by t-3 on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:34AM
I don't think there's anything wrong with discussing politics or religion at all, and I enjoy discussing them occasionally. However, in a place of business where you are being paid to work, I've never thought that unnecessary conversation was at all appropriate, especially potentially inflammatory conversation. I'm a very serious person in my work-persona though, and I've never initiated a conversation about anything except work at work, and generally ignore everything and everyone else except for those few people I bullshit with (who, with very few exceptions, I knew outside of the job before I or they were hired).
PS. I also punch in on time, every time, have never missed a day or called in except when I couldn't walk or talk because of the flu, and never use my vacation days or sick days (unless I really really really have to).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:13PM
and never use my vacation days or sick days (unless I really really really have to).
Congratulations! You are the perfect worker ant!
I for one use each and every one of my vacation days because a rested and relaxed worker is a better worker! Study after study have shown this!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:22PM
Also because they're part of my negotiated salary - why would I leave time/money on the table?
As for sick days - I use them whenever I'm feeling "off", both for my sake and my employer's. It doesn't benefit anyone if a good little worker ant comes in to stumble through the day and infect half the staff with his illness.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:15PM
Well, sometimes vacation days are redeemable as cash. Certainly, if they want me to work through a 2 week vacation, I expect 2 paychecks.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday April 10 2015, @06:57PM
In my experience you can rarely cash in for more than 50% of their value, so if I cash out I'm basically exchanging a day of pay without work for a half-day of extra pay. I budget myself better than to need to take a deal like that, thanks.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Tramii on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:36PM
This comment perfectly demonstrates why you can't share anything with anyone without it turning into an attack.
Poster A shares that they "never use my vacation days or sick days (unless I really really really have to)"
Poster B apparently takes this as an insult, calls Poster A a name, and then attempts to lecture about why what they are doing is wrong.
You can't talk about religion or politics at work because most people are gigantic babies, take things way too personally, and every discussion just becomes a giant shitfest.
Who cares if someone believes differently from you? Who cares if they have a different outlook on life? Just shut up and do your job.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:05PM
I don't get into discussions of religion at work either (unless you count my opposition to systemd and preference of emacs over vi). Or my views on a wide variety of other topics.
You can still be cordial at work, you just keep those topics out by focusing on something much safer: "Hey, Mike, how was your holiday weekend?" rather than "Hey, Mike, did you hear what that nutjob Ted Cruz said yesterday?"
There are some things you just don't talk about at work under normal circumstances: Religion, politics, which coworkers your sexually attracted to, what you did in the bathroom, the sound your significant other makes when you're getting it on, the graphic details of your mother's cancer treatment, etc.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by FatPhil on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:16PM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:11PM
Politics and religion are different from most other topics. They are polarizing, have far reaching effects and people have an investment in where they fall. Compare to discussing a movie (which people can argue about but no one cases) or the immediate weather (which everyone has to care about, but is not polarizing).
Politics/religion with friends is one thing. They are people you get along with, etc. I've argued politics and religion with my friends. But that's enabled by our foundation. First, their beliefs were exposed piecemeal, so people who I think are crazy/dont' wish to discuss religion or politics with I withdraw from or refuse to engage in the topic while things are still very general. Therefore, the topics take up a small percentage of our friendship and are so general they are easily forgotten.
At work, there is forced continuesd interaction, so the same doesn't apply. Also, there's a lot of power dynamics in the office that make it inappropriate: no one thinks its okay for a boss to try to force an employee to vote a certain way or be a member of a specific religion (possibly absent those groups that exist to promote a political point/religious view.)
(Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:53PM
I think the reason talking about politics (and religion) has historically been taboo is because people internally know that their opinions are not grounded on as firm a base as they would like,
I doubt that.
I think it is because far too many people have experience with political and religious view affecting the work environment, ruining interpersonal relationships, and poisoning the work relationship. Whispering campaigns, snide remarks and distrust.
By "problems with your political views" you seem to accept the idea that everyone should knuckle under to the group-think. By "problems with the workplace" you seem to suggest that working with a diverse group of people with varying levels of education, social skills, and different tendencies toward belief projection is somehow abnormal.
The best bet is often just quiet non-participation in political or religious discussions because you will never change anyone's mind, and you aren't being paid to do so. Just do your job while inflicting as little strife as possible. Or as my first boss told me, "Don't shit where you eat".
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:43PM
There's also the fairly clear implication that the reason is that you or your workmates can't handle such knowledge. I'm glad I don't work in such a place.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Marand on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:15PM
Because politics is fundamentally different from every other topic matter how?
Politics and religion are fundamentally different because the average person tends to be much more invested in those topics, to the point of defining oneself by them. Once you've mixed your identity into it, it becomes a tribal thing, and disagreements become unacceptable because an attack on your tribe is an attack on your self, and that will bring out the worst in someone. The act of discussing them isn't necessarily unprofessional, they're just touchy subjects and most people don't have much flexibility for other views, so it's better to avoid them in environments where you can't choose whether you have to interact or not.
Not that it's exclusively a religion-and-politics problem; people sometimes have other dangerous topics that you can't discuss with them in much the same way. Doesn't matter whether it's Star Wars vs Star Trek, Emacs vs vi, sports team loyalty, or just your average Apple zealot, there are extremists that get too invested in a topic, pick up a tribe mentality about it, and won't tolerate deviant views. When you identify those topics, you tend to mark them "off limits" and avoid them in the presence of that person.
The only difference with religion and politics is that they're dangerous topics more often than not, so people skip the discovery phase and just treat them as off-limits for workplace banter.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by FatPhil on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:21PM
I'm glad you mentioned the word "tribe". I once read a book, which I vaguely remember was one of Desmond Morris', for the coffee-table level that it reached, but for the life of me can't exactly recall, but I'm sure it was called "Tribes", and covered many of traditional examples of same, but also covered some of the examples you mention, in particular, sport team tribalism.
> The only difference with religion and politics is that they're dangerous
In what way is walking into a pub in a City part of Manchester with a red scarf on a derby match day not "dangerous"? No difference, sorry. Tribes will be tribes, idiots will be idiots. I'm really not sure politics trawls in more idiots into its various tribes than sport does.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Marand on Friday April 10 2015, @02:31AM
As I said upthread, I accept that there are some idiots who do live by and for the labels they attach, or have had attached through upbringing, to themselves. There are some countries which have a far higher density of such idiots. Maybe you live in one, and your view is poisoned by what you describe to be nothing less than a toxic environment. I'm glad I don't, and haven't for several decades.
I wouldn't necessary suggest those people are idiots, just that they identify with, and feel very strongly about, things you and I don't care as much about. Someone can be extremely intelligent and still have trigger topics that it's safer to avoid if you happen to not share the same views. Richard Stallman, for example; if he and a proprietary software proponent, in some hypothetical circumstance, had to work together for an extended period of time, I'd expect discussions about free vs proprietary software would quickly become taboo in that workplace. Intelligence and conviction aren't always mutually exclusive.
Religion and politics are just two things that people commonly have strong conviction about, and are likewise unlikely to be swayed to change their opinions, so they're usually dead-end topics. Look at the discussions here, for example. Any time a political topic comes up, there's a lot of vitriol and very little agreement from differing viewpoints, even though the userbase is, overall, rather intelligent. It's all fun and games here, but it's not the sort of thing that should be dragged into a workplace.
In what way is walking into a pub in a City part of Manchester with a red scarf on a derby match day not "dangerous"? No difference, sorry. Tribes will be tribes, idiots will be idiots. I'm really not sure politics trawls in more idiots into its various tribes than sport does.
The main difference is the person doing that most likely doesn't work there and chose to do that. IRL trolling, if you will. Someone that works in that pub likely already knows that it's a workplace taboo and would avoid doing it just like the general avoidance of religion and politics in many areas.
For a non-worker, there's no requirement to maintain civility, which acts as a disincentive to do similar in a workplace. It's the difference in going into an Apple store to bitch about the quality of Apple products, versus working for said store and doing the same.
Different places might have different hot topics, and part of integrating with a workplace is to pick up on that. It's not just about religion and politics; if you picked up a job at Canonical or RedHat, you might find that the employees are more open to discussing religion and politics, but insulting Linux and extolling the virtues of OSX and Windows there is inflammatory and creates similar workplace friction.
It's just that religion and politics (and in some areas, sports) are usually topics that it's better to tread lightly around, at least initially. Especially since they're areas that don't offer much freedom for a "live and let live" mentality, at least not in people that feel strongly about those things.
For what it's worth, I have my own topics I have strong opinions on, but they're things that aren't as exclusive/competitive, so it's easier to talk about them unless the other person is extremely combative. Little or no interest in religion or politics, so I usually just avoid them and focus on other things. Life's too short to argue politics, and that's what it usually is: argument, not debate.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Friday April 10 2015, @06:00AM
In some ways I do, I've had an utterly dreadful experience with a workmate where, after about half an hour of really interesting conversation he told me that if I finished the sentence I had just started he would have to kill me. I said one more word, and he repeated his threat. I stopped, he was serious. Yes, the topic was religion, and yes, he was Muslim, and up until that moment he had seemed relatively well balanced. But I'd still rather know that he was a potentially murderous lunatic than remain ignorant of the fact, and that knowledge could only be gained from having the conversation that we did. Without it, I may have come back from an office party dead. But that is a toxic workplace, as I said before. "Will you kill your workmates if they say something that you don't like?" should be a valid interview question.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday April 10 2015, @06:02AM
Or perhaps, "Will you destroy your workmates careers if you disagree with their views? It's a real fear:
http://www.psychologicalscience.org/index.php/news/were-only-human/74794.html [psychologicalscience.org]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 10 2015, @12:13PM
Politics and religion are fundamentally different because the average person tends to be much more invested in those topics, to the point of defining oneself by them
You can't expect to have a rational discussion about religion, because it relies on faith, which often precludes rational argument (though you can have such arguments about ethics and morality and other aspects of philosophy that border on religion). If your political views are based on faith and not subject to rational debate, then that might be a good clue for you that they're wrong. Or, at the very least, not well thought out and worthy of some further self-examination.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 10 2015, @12:25PM
Now, it's a lot less clear. It doesn't seem that there are enough bakers who would refuse the business of gay people that it would make a difference to the gay community, so I'd want to see some evidence that there's a real problem before introducing laws to fix it. I'd also like to see businesses that want to discriminate in this way put signs up in their windows and on their web sites, so I'd know not to accidentally give them my custom, thereby allowing them the freedom to be bigots and me the freedom to refuse to give money to bigots.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 10 2015, @03:09PM
Because politics is fundamentally different from every other topic matter how?
I think the reason talking about politics (and religion) has historically been taboo is because people internally know that their opinions are not grounded on as firm a base as they would like, but don't want that found out.
Also because, both being dogmatic(as you say), they tend to be held very dear by a given individual, and disagreements are far more likely to result in conflict escalation and hard feelings than in any sort of "enlightenment" of another party. So you end up with people who have to see each other every day who can't interact effectively anymore.
Basically, it's "taboo" because no one wants to have to deal with the bullshit butthurt and drama.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"