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: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:06AM
Conservatives have money.
Liberals want money.
See how simple?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by t-3 on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:26AM
Isn't discussing politics at work pretty unprofessional?
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:32AM
- Rush Limbaugh
(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"
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:04PM
I think it depends on the country you work in, and the branch of work that you're in. Banks and insurance companies are *MUCH* stricter than, say, universities or public service organizations, in my experience.
And even in a country with oceanic climate, there's only so much you can say about the weather.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:38AM
There is a huge element of truth to this article. I didn't experience this in California, but it's no different in places like Austin or Boston.
It can be an interesting experiment: start a conversation with someone - of whatever viewpoint - and let them assume that you share their views. Gradually move the discussion towards some alternate viewpoint. As you approach the boundaries of what is acceptable in their worldview, they get uncomfortable. How do they react when you cross over to a viewpoint that they vehemently disagree with?
- Go to your left-wing progressive liberal, tell them your conservative views. They will see you as utterly immoral, because their views are the one true way. Diversity of opinion is not possible, because you are not only wrong, but evil.
- Go to your right-wing conservative, tell them your liberal views. At worst, they'll tell you that you're nuts, and then go about their business. The only area where I've run into genuine intolerance is in areas of religion. In politics, you can always talk, even if they think you're crazy.
The intolerant progressives are the would-be tyrants referred to by C. S. Lewis: "“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:44AM
How about all those lesbian Catholic priests, eh?
(Score: 2) by DECbot on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:20PM
If they are truly lesbian, then they are Episcopalian priests. Catholicism still does not ordain women into priesthood.
cats~$ sudo chown -R us /home/base
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:18PM
woooosh!
and what the hell is "truly lesbian?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @05:40AM
Truly Lesbian as contrasted with men who think it is witty to claim to be lesbian. At least that is my steelman [lesswrong.com] assumption.
(Score: 5, Touché) by mtrycz on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:15AM
Good thing the liberals aren't really into tyranny.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(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].
(Score: 1) by t-3 on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:21AM
Many people are opposed to the word tyranny, but wholeheartedly endorse the action. This is the reason that believing in and standing up for ideals like freedom and liberty is not normal. Human nature is to desire kingship or a king who you agree with. Democracy is unnatural, which is why it's necessary, and also why it will never work, especially in a world based on scarcity ("economy"). The removal of scarcity = no need for government
(Score: 2, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:55AM
Maybe people (liberal as well as conservative) only react strongly when they have convictions rather than mere opinions. For conservatives it's about their imaginary friends (religion) but is lacking in the human rights department, for liberals it's often vice-versa. BTW: I'm not sure this makes the conservatives more tolerant. When medical practitioners are murdered for executing abortions, I think it doesn't concern them too much if the murder considers it a political or a religious question. Same for gay people being prevented from marrying. Also I wouldn't care if Ku Klux Klan was fundamentally religiously or rather politically motivated, it was (is) definitely conservatives showing lack of tolerance.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:00PM
"Maybe people (liberal as well as conservative) only react strongly when they have convictions rather than mere opinions"
You may be right. You go on to talk about religious intolerance (abortion clinics, etc.), and I did note that religion is the one area where I have encountered intolerance on the conservative side. That said, two points:
- Conservative != Religious. Many people are in one circle but not the other. I want to say that, because in your post you seem to be specifically talking about people who are both.
- Having convictions is still no excuse for demonizing people who disagree with you. Sure, I sincerely believe X, but there are other points of view in the world, just as sincerely held as mine.
That last is the kind of diversity I, personally, find lacking in many progressive liberals. Friends and family who are more conservative than me - we can agree to disagree. Those who are more liberal? Not so much.
Watching the reactions to my original comment has also been fun. Immediately three up-mods, where it sat for a bit, then three downmods. Most recently as "flamebait". I figured it would spark discussion, and it has. So, thanks for your reply.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:11PM
To me this sometimes depends. I'm convinced that anyone's freedom ends where the freedom of the next starts. So, if someone feels gay people are an abomination, they can, and I won't ask them to sympathize with gay couples. They can just stay away and look the other direction. But if they lobby for taking actions against gays, this crosses a line for me towards evil. Same with black people. If someone feels racist deep inside, it's his opinion. If he starts attacking black/white/red/green/yellow people or lobbies against there equal rights, it crosses the line to evil for me. Both seems right-out selfish to me, because they just have to close their eyes to be not affected by those groups.
On the other hand, while I have a clear opinion on global warming, I do accept that some people might just rely on other sources, and even though I consider denial of global warming stupid, I wouldn't consider the people evil.
You are welcome :-) I didn't mod your post, because the only mod relevant would have been "disagree", and I find it quite poor to moderate "disagree" when I could instead engage in an exchange of arguments.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:37PM
I'm convinced that anyone's freedom ends where the freedom of the next starts. So, if someone feels gay people are an abomination, they can, and I won't ask them to sympathize with gay couples. They can just stay away and look the other direction. But if they lobby for taking actions against gays, this crosses a line for me towards evil.
What's your opinion, then, on the issue of Christian bakers/florists/etc refusing service to gay couples for wedding services? Is the baker's request to not be involved "staying away and looking the other direction"? Are the laws guaranteeing that right to refuse service lobbying against equal rights?
Posting anonymously out of cowardice, as apropos for this thread.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:58PM
These are two different question. I will only answer only to the first question, as I don't know much about the legal situation in US.
First of all, I think the whole discussion is a bit overblown when I compare it to police violence against black people etc. Second, I think anyone should have the right to purchase what the bakery sells, no matter what colour or sexual preference someone has. If someone gay wants a standard wedding cake, (s)he should be able to buy one. "Gay" is not written on their forehead, and it simply isn't part of the purchase-discussion.
The situation might be different if they want a special custom-decoration. In that case I would still consider the bakery nuts for refusing the deal and would definitely never buy in that bakery again, but I'm not sure a law should be required to oblige them to serve these wishes. I'd hope enough people would just boycott the shop to make them reconsider.
Personally I have a few friends who are openly gay (plus, as I expect most people have, some secretly gays). I'm straight. I have to admit that I find the imagination to kiss another man disgusting, and I wouldn't like to see a male gay couple fondling, and I openly told those friends while telling them that I definitely wish them all the best for their relationship and that I hope they consider this attitude my personal weakness rather than an offends. The same holds true, by the way, for straight couples I find ugly, or for people eating Balut [wikipedia.org]. It's because I easily and involuntarily imagine myself being part of situations I see. (I also count a gay woman to my friends, but with gay women, especially when they are attractive, the first impulse for most men is probably not to reject them but to ask if they can join in ;-) [Obviously that would be stupid as well, since she is gay, not bi-sexual])
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by Rickter on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:18PM
The issue comes in where the baker or caterer has to decorate a cake that is contrary to what their belief of what marriage is, and then deliver it to an event that celebrates the couple's union. For the photographer, you are helping somebody document and remember something, and trying to do so in a positive, artistic way. But for some of these people, it's not that the people participating are evil, it's that the actual event is a lie.
Consider, if you are a caterer who is liberal, and the Republicans or NRA (gun rights) comes to you and asks you to cater an event, for instance, make cakes in the shapes of guns and bullets or the Republican elephant, and otherwise help them celebrate a fund raising event. Should you be forced to participate as a business in their political free speech? Or should they be prepared to go to another shop to find somebody who will take their business if you should say no?
If I were one of these businesses, I would post a sign that I will give 10% of all profits to an anti-gay marriage political advocacy group, and let them spend their money at my business if they choose to do so.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:56PM
So? It's a celebration of a couple and their invited guests. It should have no impact on society. (It might have because there are many getting upset about things which shouldn't concern them,)
If a photographer would argue he couldn't do this, I could understand. Even if he says he doesn't want to, because it means spending a significant amount of time on a celebration he can't relate to, I could understand and applaud his honesty while also questioning his professionalism.
How can an event be a lie? The intent might be considered a lie by some, the event simply takes place.
So far, no problem. It's only a cake, and if they like that shape - so what. If they like, I'd make it butt-shaped. Maybe not a swastika, but other than that I wouldn't mind much.
That's where the difference lies. A wedding, gay or straight, is an event for the people getting married. A fund raising event is an event to influence politics in a way which might have very practical implications to everyone. Also being gay is not a decision, being republican or NRA-proponent is.
They shouldn't be forced. Reason see above.
...and you might lose a lot of straight customers as well. This [newmediarockstars.com] story is interesting: A pizza-store which announced they'd stop serving gay people based on the new law. They had to close down due to the backlash. They got donations from supporters of their policy, but I predict, the backlash would grow while support-donations would decline over time, should other shops follow.
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:49PM
> backlash
To be fair, it seems they were getting a lot of prank delivery orders. A couple of those a day can be the difference between the black and the red.
> They got donations from supporters of their policy, but I predict, the backlash would grow while support-donations would decline over time, should other shops follow.
Well, people went fuckin nuts to support chik-fil-a after their CEO advertised his anti-gayness. Like crazy fucking nuts. [washingtonexaminer.com]
With $800K they don't even have to stay open anymore, they won the lotto. But, for a small restaurant it doesn't take all that many dedicated customers to keep it afloat. And that's the thing about being a bigotted business - as long as there are enough people who aren't offended by your discrimination because its not directed at them personally it doesn't really matter if you shit on minorities or not. Their $$ vote doesn't count.
(Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday April 10 2015, @10:03AM
Maybe. The next job that tries it might still get ~$700K, the next-next ~$500K, and so on. People will get more and more tired of paying for all shops rejecting their paying customers. On the other hand I think the support for gay-rights is growing, the amount of people willing to boycott such backward will increase. I might be wrong, of course, but I think the assumptions are reasonable enough...
Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
(Score: 1) by tftp on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:41PM
So far, no problem. It's only a cake, and if they like that shape - so what. If they like, I'd make it butt-shaped. Maybe not a swastika, but other than that I wouldn't mind much.
It's just your threshold is different. You stop at the swastika. You most certainly would stop if the customer wants you to write obscenities about your own family. You most certainly would stop if the customer wants you to make a cake that celebrates racism. Those examples only prove the simple point: everyone has a threshold past which they won't go, no matter what. Christians place their threshold at celebration of LGBT practices. You place your threshold at celebration of fascism. There is no fundamental difference between you and them.
...and you might lose a lot of straight customers as well. This story is interesting: A pizza-store which announced they'd stop serving gay people based on the new law. They had to close down due to the backlash.
I don't think it is proper to refuse sale of common, standard products to gay people. However if the owner only refuses to participate in gay activities, it certainly should be his right. I would definitely buy from them, no matter if the owners are gay or anti-gay themselves, as long as they sell what I want. If they don't, I'll have to look for someone else who will make me an FSM-themed cake. (It may well be that a Christian baker will not want to support proud wearers of colanders.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:25PM
- Having convictions is still no excuse for demonizing people who disagree with you. Sure, I sincerely believe X, but there are other points of view in the world, just as sincerely held as mine.
If the application of a particular point of view causes enormous harm, what do you call someone who advocates for that?
Are you so tolerant that you won't condemn people like NAMBLA or someone who promotes ISIS?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tibman on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:56PM
Are we talking thought-crime here? Or speech? Or actual support of ISIS? Two are freedoms and the third is (probably) a crime.
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:10PM
Thought-crimees and speech. NAMBLA condones pederasty but they don't admit to doing it.
Same thing with someone promoting ISIS.
Also, wasn't all that clear from the context? Has brad said anything about commiting crimes? Why would you bring that up?
(Score: 2) by tibman on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:04PM
Obviously if someone is committing crimes then you can demonize them. But can you demonize them if they have a different opinion? I was asking for clarifying question to this: someone who promotes ISIS?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:34PM
Again why did you choose to ignore the context?
I explicitly said "someone who advocates"
Here's what I think - you thought you saw a tiny crack in my argument and decided you were going to jump in and "gotcha" me with it because the actual point which was spelled out twice in my post alone and clearly obvious from the context of the discussion made brad's hypocrisy too clear.
(Score: 2) by tibman on Friday April 10 2015, @01:06AM
I asked for a clarification and made no assumption. Isn't that an acceptable thing to do?
SN won't survive on lurkers alone. Write comments.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:54PM
Are we talking thought-crime here? Or speech?
The author clearly stated "application."
So no, we aren't. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by fadrian on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:06PM
Actually, as a card carrying liberal, I have a right wing friend who I play poker with. I think his views are misguided and fueled by misinformation, but I do not think of him as evil. Random, card carrying conservative on the internet, same thing. This does not mean I will not occasionally call you a Neanderthal due to your conservative world view, and I will point out the evil that comes about due to these views, but I don't think my conservative friends are evil (or at least all evil - sort of like liberals in that regard) - sort of a love the sinner, hate the sin sort of thing.
But then I've gotten used to dealing with people with conservative views - half my brothers and sisters are conservatives and I have years of Thanksgiving dinner experience. Plus I couldn't give up my conservative friend - I do like to take his money because his poker is as conservative as his thought processes (i.e., he plays like a rock).
That is all.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:07PM
Your entire post is an exercise in confirmation bias. Look at you, one of the flaming conservatives on this site, never in your life have you ever "gone to your right-wing conservative and told them your liberal views." You haven't shown anything other than your empathy for your tribe.
> tyranny
Your use of that quote is completely circular. You start off with tyranny which you implicitly define as anything liberals want. All you've done is say "liberals are evil." Which is ironic given your previous paragraph claiming that a good conservative would never try to shut someone down for having a contrary opinion because they think its not only wrong, but evil.
What's revealing about that quote is the full context [angelfire.com] - CS Lewis was arguing against rehabilitation of criminals and in favor of righteous punishment. His argument is that if people are given the punishment they morally deserve that will somehow prevent the state from falsely convicting people. Which has worked out so well in the USA for the last 40 years.
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:23PM
"...never in your life have you ever 'gone to your right-wing conservative and told them your liberal views.'"
Actually, I know a lot of people more conservative than I am. In particular, a lot of very right-wing religious conservatives, whose positions I find pretty disturbing. As an example, I was against all of the US interventions in the Middle East, whereas the many people I know were rah-rah in support of them.
If you find me a "flaming conservative" that only indicates that you are somewhere on my political left. It's a big spectrum, after all. I can't really judge your views beyond that, since you posted AC.
By the way, I disagree somewhat with your interpretation of C.S. Lewis. He finds problems with both alternatives to dealing with criminals (punishment and humanitarianism). The problem he finds with humanitarianism is the quote I used. He also puts it another way: "good men ... consistently acting upon [the tenets of humanitarianism] would act as cruelly and unjustly as the greatest tyrants. Ultimately, he finds the humanitarian position the worse alternative, and reluctantly concludes that classic punishment remains the only alternative. These positions map very easily to generalized conservative/progressive beliefs, and that's how I used the quote.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @02:19PM
Conservative says he's not conservative because he's not a blood-thirsty religious nutjob.
Low bar.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:45PM
He's admitting to being a RINO. [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 1) by triklyn on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:34PM
kudos, i was about to say something similar, as a bloody liberal myself.
liberals get deeply offended. conservatives tend to just see them dollar signs and go about their day.
(Score: 2) by panachocala on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:08PM
"... go about their day... "
Yup, so long as "their day" already involved opposing gay marriage, protesting abortion clinics, sending chain emails about Obama the anti-christ in Chief, seceding from the Union, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:50PM
You forgot telling people how they can spend their money, [cnn.com] what they can do behind closed doors, [wikipedia.org] what they can put in their bodies [ontheissues.org] in their free time, etc.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by jmorris on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:53PM
The only area where I've run into genuine intolerance is in areas of religion...
And here is the explanation you seek. To a Progressive there is no religion but the State, i.e. politics has substituted for religion in their worldview. Everything within the State, nothing without the State, nothing opposed to the State.
Diversity of opinion is not possible, because you are not only wrong, but evil.
They are right to believe this and it is Conservatives who are quite wrong on this point, a defect my team must soon correct or perish.
Take the Ten Commandments for a moral checklist (since it is held in common amongst all three major religions) and produce a similar 'top ten listicle' for the secular American creed, Free Speech, RTKBA, Rule of Law vs Rule of Great Men, (small R) republicanism, limited and divided government, right to own property/your labor, capitalism/free market, etc. Then work down that list and assign points for the two great warring political philosophies thus:
5 We would die before betraying this ideal
4 We believe in this, but might have sinned a bit now and then... flirted with banning flag burning or something
3 This should be codified in law.
2 It is a good idea, but opinions can vary amongst otherwise good people
1 It is a bad idea. At minimum the State should not enforce or be bound by this rule.
0 Violating this 'law' should be mandatory.
Doing this for both lists gets a score between 0 and 100. I'd bet any honest self assessment would put the median Progressive activist in single digits or under twenty by any assessment, the median American in the seventies and a Tea Party member in the eighties or higher. In other words, by the moral compass of a Progressive I -AM- Evil. They realize this and have been acting on this knowledge for almost a Century now to destroy me and mine. My team still operates under the delusion our opponents are misguided, insane or just ignorant. Not Stupid, Evil.
(Score: 1) by rondon on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:15PM
I don't understand how this is flamebait? I don't agree with all of his assumptions, but his methodology is interesting and his point was made without resorting to slander. In fact, it was barely confrontational.
Whoever modded this flamebait, please explain why. I'm genuinely curious. Thank you.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:01PM
I didn't mod it, but it starts off with insults - saying that "the state" is an all encompassing religion for the people he disagrees with. Then the meat of the post is just sophistry - expecting the reader to prove his point for him with the explicit claim that if you don't come to the same conclusion you aren't being "honest." Seems inflammatory to me.
(Score: 2) by PinkyGigglebrain on Thursday April 09 2015, @05:53PM
Thank you for the C.S.Lewis quote. I may add it to, or replace my sigs with it.
"Beware those who would deny you Knowledge, For in their hearts they dream themselves your Master."
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @06:27PM
You are hilarious. At worst a right-wing nutjob will come back to work with his AR-15 and kill everyone at the jobsite. Happens pretty damn frequently. Or maybe, bomb a daycare center, or murder a doctor, or kidnap a doctor's kids. The political right is the domain of the violent nutjob. It is probably related to the over representation of sociopaths on the right.
Folks on the left (you probably don't know any) just sit around lamenting how everybody is an anesthetized idiot drooling in front of their media devices, and the revolution is never going to come.
The center-right that you call liberals are seen as pathetic by the real left too.
(Score: 2) by khedoros on Friday April 10 2015, @12:57AM
Go to your right-wing conservative, tell them your liberal views. At worst, they'll tell you that you're nuts, and then go about their business.
Tell that to my father or anyone in his family. It's a great way to inspire shouting matches if you don't quickly recant your position.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @01:39AM
Should sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?
Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.
A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).
The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).
With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:
* Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
* Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
* Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
* Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
* Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?
and
* What are the consequences of not doing this
Citations:
(0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310 [ibiblio.org]
(1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Debian_and_LinuxChix_harassment_by_MikeeUSA [wikia.com]
(2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51 [phoronix.com]
(3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?115776-Xonotic-Forked-ChaosEsqueAnthology-Sees-New-Release/page2 [phoronix.com]
"Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
"Thanks everybody for speaking up."
(4) https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:JeCIgSFrBlgJ:http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page%3Dnews_item%26px%3DChaosEsqueAnthology-Rel-51%2Bchaosesque&gbv=1&tbs=qdr:w&hl=en&&ct=clnk [googleusercontent.com]
(5) Linux "Code of Conflict"
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:14AM
Or, go to SoylentNews and point out that what Snowden did indeed, even by his own admission, break the law and his oath, and that he dramatically weakened his country's national security by indescriminately grabbing and dumping foreign intelligence secrets to his country's adversaries and he should be punished for it. They will see you as utterly immoral, because their views are the one true way. Diversity of opinion is not possible, because you are not only wrong, but evil.
Or, go to SoylentNews and point out that there is something like a million police officers in North America and that they are, by a wide margin, good, decent people interested in protecting and serving their communities, and it is the outlier stories and events that get blown out of proportion in this 24-hour news cycle. They will see you as utterly immoral, because their views are the one true way. Diversity of opinion is not possible, because you are not only wrong, but evil.
I can go on, but I really should be getting back to all that evil stuff us evil people like to do.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:53AM
Yep, pure evil. But you are so good at it!
(Score: 2) by GeminiDomino on Friday April 10 2015, @03:39PM
go to SoylentNews and point out that there is something like a million police officers in North America and that they are, by a wide margin, good, decent people interested in protecting and serving their communities , and it is the outlier stories and events that get blown out of proportion in this 24-hour news cycle. They will see you as utterly immoral, because their views are the one true way.
(Emphasis mine)
Or you'll get called out for "pointing out" an entirely subjective assessment as an objective fact makes you a fine case-in-point.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of our culture"
(Score: 2) by Whoever on Friday April 10 2015, @04:31AM
Or, the right-wing conservatives are simply deaf to alternative viewpoints. That's certainly the case in my office: the one right-wing conservative just doesn't listen to any counter points of view, so he never gets into conflict over them. He's simply oblivious to other sides of any political debate.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:47AM
Fire and Brimstone to Cleanse the One True God's Earth of the Heathen Scum who use those damn Devil Computers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:05PM
while i disagree with the firebombing, primarily on the grounds that all kinds of insects and bacteria would die as well, it DOES seem like an elegant solution to the problem of garbage manufacturing industry, known as IT
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Thursday April 09 2015, @09:47AM
Where have we heard of this before? The Boys From Brazil? The Lizard people from subterranean regions? Nazis on the Moon? History is made at night! Character is what you are in the dark! We must work, while the clock, she is a ticking!!! Where are we going to go? (response: "Planet Ten!") When are we going to go? (weak response: "Real soon!") Lord John Whorphin, may he rest in peace.
(Score: 1) by rondon on Thursday April 09 2015, @08:17PM
Much of the time I have no idea WTF you are talking about, but I am almost always entertained.
Side question for the crowd - is Aristarchus serious, or is this performance art?
(Score: 2) by Yog-Yogguth on Saturday April 11 2015, @11:41PM
Of the comment in question which made perfect sense to me (but I'm weird so that might be the reason; sometimes weirdness overlaps) in addition to being insightful regarding an aspect/interpretation of the topic which goes something like “scary hidden republicans might inhabit the cubicle next to you and you can never tell: panic now” I would say that he's very serious but also seriously sarcastic/mocking. Is that performance art? One might say so but ‘performance art’ often has an implied meaning of being contrived or make-believe for its own sake so if so in this case he would have to play a character or feign an opinion and I don't think he did either. Maybe that's because I agree with (and beyond) and appreciated/enjoyed the sentiment and point I think he made: assuming everyone agrees with you is stupid in the first place and being afraid of that fact doubly so (the consequences however is a different story).
But other times I'm deep in the WTF jungle and so far away I don't even hear the whoosh :)
On-topic comment to TFA: once in university while waiting for a class another of the early birds¹ started talking with me about how awful so-and-so where, when I smilingly told him I was one of those so-and-so he made the closest possible human approximation of a cartoon character's jaw hitting the desk and it got very quiet :D
Almost as bad as when you hear someone earnestly advocate some over-the-top version of your own opinions. Or the silent horror even if it's on a one-to-one basis with some stranger when its something very close to your own opinions that you know perfectly well is double-double-plus-ungood, super-thoughtcrime, and potentially physically dangerous (of the “random” violence and unsolved case kind) and they expect you to join in in agreement (either that's entrapment/surveillance or more likely it's a total moron with the awareness level of jelly).
Now imagine everyone being like that (because everyone is like that): of course people start to shut up. There's no shortage of people losing their jobs for being “wrong” and there's no way to ensure that other people's reaction will be anywhere close to sensible since it's their reactions/preconceptions/bigotry etc. and nobody else's.
¹ who happened to be a communist/leftist/“liberal” and unfortunately more often than not this does not seem to be beside the point: what was that old meme? “Reality tends to have liberal bias”? Yeah, just not in the way those “liberals” intended it to be understood :P
Bite harder Ouroboros, bite! tails.boum.org/ linux USB CD secure desktop IRC *crypt tor (not endorsements (XKeyScore))
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @11:16AM
People with abhorrent views learn to keep schtum.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:28PM
You're right, all the people in the GDR who kept their views hidden did so because they knew they were abhorrent, not because they were afraid of Stasi repercussions.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Thursday April 09 2015, @12:46PM
People with abhorrent views learn to keep schtum.
That's nonsense.
Example: IS "press releases" where they release bodyparts of a member of the press.
There is a certain kind of people for whom "everybody else around me does it too" is considered a rational argument. They're not the majority (they think they are) but they're not exactly rare, either.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:20PM
They're not the majority
This is very true. I was in a restaurant picking up some food. I personally think the food is mediocre and very over priced. My wife loves it so therefor we eat there fairly often. It is also they sort of place people like to be 'seen' at. Because it 'shows their diversity'.
There was a large group there. They all held very similar views, Dressed very similar, etc, etc. Now one of the reasons I dislike this restaurant is they are *slow* even when it is dead in there, not because of who eats there. So I sat and waited. I also got to hear most of the conversation at the large 20 top table. The conversation moved toward global warming as it was very important to that group. The guest of honor was a kid who was walking across the united states to visit all the tourist attractions and meet people. They asked him what people thought of it. His reaction made the whole table jump up and practically lynch him. His reaction was 'most people do not care and they do not really talk about it'. They tried to convince him that people should care and talking about it is *very* important. He has 0 control of that. Yet they wanted him to make sure it was important. Their reaction was one of shock that they were not in the majority and people did not act exactly like them. He was there showing them that life is not that simple. Unfortunately their conclusions were that people need more education about it. When the kids point was people do not care because it is not that important to them, they are more worried if they can pay the bills.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @10:49PM
There are a great many people who get their water supply in the Summer from snowpack that formed in the Winter.
Across the globe, that snowpack is becoming a smaller and smaller mass.
In SoCal, we are in what is expected to be a 20-year superdrought.
"It sure is hot today" is bad.
"There's not enough water to bathe or prepare my meals" will be a whole 'nother level.
Superstorm Sandy was 1000 miles across.
If you live in Hurricane Alley, expect to see longer storm seasons with more storms and bigger storms
...and expect Hurricane Alley to extend farther north in the coming years.
With the baseline (climate) having more thermal energy, the deltas (weather) are going to get ever more nasty.
Even people who live far north are going to be affected when cold air masses slam into the warmer air masses from the south.
With more energy involved, the storms those collisions spawn will be getting more and more powerful.
In low-lying areas, 1 foot of sea level rise means 1000 feet of lost shoreline.
Places like South Florida will be underwater at high tide after Antarctica has dumped several more giant ice shelve into the ocean.
Your beachfront property will be worth $0.
For farmers, climate change means that the belt for the crops you have gained skill in growing will move northward and away from you.
The problem with people who don't know that climate change is a serious issue is that that are thinking on too low a level.
"It sure is hot today" is just the start.
Water is a much bigger issue and it is directly related.
-- gewg_
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:28PM
"People with abhorrent views learn to keep schtum."
And we have a winner! A volunteer who came to demonstrate the problem.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 09 2015, @01:44PM
I work quite amicably with people of all political and social and religious leanings. In fact I am not entirely sure what the biases of many my coworkers are, as we keep that crap out of the office. And the ones I do know well, are smart enough not to bring it up.
Bringing your politics to work is only going to be a recipe for disaster. Be you liberal or conservative, beating that drum while others are trying to work is only going to be counterproductive. I have seen both sides do it.
I know there are people that can speak reasonably with those that disagree, but that talk is best kept for happy hour after work.
And you personally have nothing to gain from it. People turn business into a personal vendetta against those of a different leaning. Maybe it is a consequence of the internet era, but people are simply not able to speak with one another anymore.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:03PM
There are lots of gays in tech, especially holding talking/outside type roles. That's one reason why SV and other tech centers are so liberal.
OK, another reason could be that people who don't watch Fox News care about the direction in which the world's climate is heading, and that immediately puts them at odds with most of the Republican Party.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Archon V2.0 on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:12PM
I am saddened that we live in such a two-party good-guy-and-bad-guy us-vs.-them society that, not only are "Republican" and "conservative" seen as interchangeable, not only "conservative" and "religious", but also "conservative" and "evangelical Biblical-'literalist' Christian".
(Score: 1, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @03:30PM
Blame the GOP for that. They have actively tried to make themselves the brand of conservatives, evangelicals and religious extremists. As the saying goes, you are known by the company you keep. That's the downside of Reagan's "big tent."
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 09 2015, @07:58PM
Correct. the GOP does nothing but pander to the insane, "the earth is 6000 years old and White Jesus is coming any day now", religious nutjobs. Anyone moderate or who thinks for themselves rather than doing as the party tells them (who, in turn, are told what to do by a few mega-wealthy donors [foxnews.com] what to do) gets thrown out of the party or mocked as a RINO.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @02:24AM
It isn't a problem with Reagan's tent. The problem is the modern-day GOP kicked almost everyone but the old white males out of the tent. It is mighty hypocritical that those who are left go out of their way to put him on a dais, while someone today holding his same policy issues would be run out of the party as a RINO.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by JeanCroix on Thursday April 09 2015, @04:54PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @03:09AM
What happened to the people that are able to debate issues in an objective manner? This might point at why many western democratic systems are so broken - the basis of a functioning democracy is supposed to be a *public* debate (so that means, a discussion by the public - i.e. citizens) about political subjects.
What we have now is that the polics are debated by an elite that is not directly chosen by the people, and that there is a notion that discussing politics is somehow taboo. There is a word for that, it's called totalitarianism.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 10 2015, @10:47AM
Or maybe it's taboo because the people you work with havn't chosen to spend half their waking life around you as you spout of about your particularly views. They are there for the same reason you are: to avoid being starving and/or homeless. Some people relish conflict and debate. Those that don't have every right to tell you to shut the fuck up until you step out of the workplace.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Friday April 10 2015, @12:30PM
sudo mod me up