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: 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.