What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting | Hacker News Reader

What disturbed me about the Facebook meeting

medium.com

60 pointssunils34119 comments

I'm a Republican. Been working in or for valley companies since 1998. Engineering then business. The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized. The left in the valley has become increasingly vocal, from the c-suite down, and I've been reluctant to express my views for fear of retaliation (See Mozilla's ex-CEO.)

The valley isn't a place focused on the innovation and free thinking that gave it a rep as libertarian. It's focused on money and power at an international level and it's found the left worldwide as the most amenable to that path.

Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Benioff, Tim Cook... These are the narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders from almost every dystopian novel or movie the last 100 years - and they are creating the very technology to give themselves real, orwellian, big-brother control, hand-in-hand with governments.

I fear my future, my children's, and their grand-children.

I was with you until the third paragraph. You're engaging in the same kind of extreme stereotyping that you're complaining about.

Those guys probably disagree profoundly with you; it doesn't mean they are evil narcissists out of a dystopian novel.

You mean these CEO's narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders? Pretty sure they are.

You mean they aren't helping the US Gov't spy on us? Pretty sure they are.

You mean they aren't throwing their economic weight around in the USA to oppose republican measures while cutting deals with oppressive totalitarian leaders (China, Saudi Arabia, etc.) in order to sell product? Pretty sure they are.

But is this a "liberal vs conservative" issue or a "big money vs the public" issue?

There are plenty of other companies that throw their weight around to oppose Democrats while cutting deals with totalitarians. And other companies that donate to both sides just to make sure, such as the arms industry?

I think it was mostly dumb luck in the beginning, but "liberal vs conservative" is the best distraction from "big money vs the public" in our lifetimes.

It's really about freedom. And it's "Those who want to control us vs those who want freedom to control themselves." Has always been that way, always will be.

Democrats and Republicans used to (largely) agree on freedom as the goal and just disagreed on the means. Now that's changed.

It's a freedom vs not-free issue. There will always be rich, powerful people that want more power. The power they want often comes at the expense of individual rights.

The government is supposed to be there to protect us from exactly these types, but now they are increasingly working hand in hand against us.

The government is supposed to be there to protect us from exactly these types

That's not a very .. conservative? Right-ish? Libertarian? statement. This is what I meant by the party lines and labels obscuring this issue.

I'm pretty sure those CEOs will behave pretty much the same way regardless of party affiliation.

Do you have any proposed solutions to these issues? I'm asking because I can't think of any that aren't extremely liberal in character, like government putting limits on these businesses or affirmative action for conservatives, as Beck discusses in the article.

Perhaps he's wrong but your complaints of being "marginalized" and against the "money and power" of big business don't sound traditionally conservative. The traditional conservative line would be that you should stop complaining. Mark Zuckerberg et al are more talented and deserve the money and power they've attained because they worked harder and smarter than you have. If you would just work harder and smarter you would easily overcome these problems on your own.

Can't reply to all the comments here, but yours is very worthy of a reply. If I have time today, I will get to it, but very busy at work already.

On one hand, I understand why you have that perception of conservatives. We haven't done a good job of communicating our principles lately (which is why Trump won the nomination, in large part - but in fairness it's also a tough thing to do with so many institutions stacked against us: media, academia, govt administration, etc.)

On the other hand, that's not quite a conservative viewpoint, and you've also picked up on the wrong threads in the fabric of my dystopian nightmare.

In short... I wouldn't punish them for being successful. I just don't want the government helping them or working with them. The government exists to protect our rights - especially from infringement by the powerful (in business or government.)

Instead the power hungry in business and government are teaming up. Teaming up to spy on us, control us, and enriching the businesses and cementing the control of bureaucracy at the same time.

Eg. in spying and violating rights, where does the government end and business begin?

Thanks for your reply! What you're describing is very close to what Tocqueville describes in Democracy in America - that the US has achieved a balance between three parts of society: political society (the gov't), economic society (business) and civil society (social bonds that tie people together in their communities or the judiciary).

I can appreciate your self-description as "conservative" vs. "Republican", because they're very different. The Republican party has tried to so simplify their message to "lower taxes", "let the market decide", and "small government" in such a way that they're only really representing economic society. That means that they're also ignoring important checks on economic society that Tocqueville noticed were key to avoiding something like the French Revolution. (Tocqueville also speaks at length at the need for a balance between complete equality and complete inequality to avoid unrest).

Republicans have eviscerated taxes on business and created economic imbalances like lower taxes for capital gains, inability to discharge student loans in bankruptcy, bailouts to banks "too big to fail", restrictions on aspects of civil society like unions, "trickle-down economics", etc. These once added checks and balances to economic society and helped preserve civil society.

Strong civil society is what lead to a Great America of small towns, family businesses, and general prosperity for hard working people....all of which are in danger today. Wal-Mart is the antithesis of a strong American Civil Society. You simply can't have a company propped up by government welfare and anti-union legislation like Wal-Mart and a culture of successful small businesses at the same time. It's an oxymoron.

I think what conservatives are seeing is that the Republican ideal to simply remove all checks and balances on the free market has been poisoning the strong civil society they're trying to rescussitate. When you're feeling like the government is working against you, it's true. Civil society is getting eviscerated and your ideal "equality of opportunity" is getting b-slapped by the invisible hand of the rich and powerful capitalists.

Even Adam Smith made great points for the necessity to check the invisible hand in the Wealth of Nations. He describes the necessity of gov't sponsored public works projects, of checking monopolies, and of public education to avoid the "torpor of the mind" that economic society would lead us to without any checks to it.

Unfortunately few Republicans clamoring for lower taxes and free market economy know anything about the Wealth of Nations. Their one-dimensional policy opinions are creating more of a problem and hopefully more people will start calling themselves "conservatives" because they're trying to conserve equality of opportunity instead of simply parroting "Lower taxes", "Free market", and "Who is John Galt".

Even conservatives aren't that foolish.

And Glenn Beck's "I looked into his eyes..." trope reminds me of George W Bush looking into Putin's soul. Facebook trending topics had/has bias the same way any mainstream newsroom has for the last 60 years - made worse by the fact that it's filled with low-paid 20-something liberal arts majors.

Yet Beck can't say that. He runs a media site. Getting cut off from social networks would be a death sentence. He has to go to Zuckerberg for the publicity and he has to stay positive after the meeting... due to the real possibility of retaliation.

Remember, 1984 was a warning, not a how-to manual.

Whereas the right has had a long history of old-media control, especially in the UK: http://leftfootforward.org/2013/06/everyone-should-know-who-...

The US has the Koch brothers: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/27/koch-brothers-media...

"Narcissistic, self-righteous, power-obsessed business leaders" are something of a universal problem which the 'left' has often campaigned against, in the interest of a more level playing field. Here the US conflation of 'left', 'socialist' and 'liberal' becomes a problem in describing the politics, because while 'liberal' and 'progressive' can reasonably be attached to wealthy men in some circumstances, 'socialist' really can't.

It's also interesting how the "right" have traditionally been in favour of the right of businesses to pursue profits regardless of the negative consequences to others, but now that involves throwing extreme right-wing media under the bus this comes into question. Glenn Beck manages to stick to his principles here.

And I agree strongly with sibling comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737943

The media situation is not symmetrical. It's not so much left vs right or even true vs false, it's "well-thought out" vs (there is no nicer way of putting it) "bullshit". The "Views on shape of Earth differ" style of journalism is irresponsible.

If your views are in favour of the repression and marginalisation of others then you will find yourself in the minority in the left coast.

I'm sorry, the right hold some pretty reprehensible views on gay marriage, police brutality, the poor and working class, and women's rights. Then, when they are called on their bullshit all of the sudden they are the victim.

The rest of the world does not apologise if reality has a liberal bias.

This is the most simplistic, binary thinking. Coke vs. Pepsi. There is more to the World than "Left vs. Right". Such as economic vs. Social. Authoritarian vs. Libertarian is another sliding scale axis and probably more relevant here.

Just saying there are two sides doesn't make it so. In all the debates there is the right and there is everyone else.

Examples: Gun control: The right, absolutely no controls. Everyone else is a sliding scale of limited access, limited capacity to complete removal.

The right has set themselves apart by not even wanting to negotiate. There is no sliding scale to them. Elected politicians that want to stay elected adhere to Grover Norquist and the Bush Doctrine. What's the sliding scale on that?

called on their bullshit == fired and harassed?

The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy.

>The behaviour here is the repression and marginalisation of a political group, deemed unworthy.

a political group is something you choose to be a part of. This is significantly different from, say, skin color.

significantly different in the sense that now it's ok to be repressed and marginalised?

First, what of religious groups?

Second, there's' a bit of a slight of hand here. Many political groups claims to be representative of "demographic" groups, or at least the distinction isn't clear. Are pro-Israel groups demographic or political groups. What about about demographic groups that disseminate political opinions and actively get involved in political discourse?

>The last five years I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized

From a conservative/libertarian outlook... wouldn't that be your problem to solve? Isn't the conservative position that if we just remove big government equality should work itself out?

Yes and no. I'm not asking for the gov't to solve the problem, but to the extent that gov't is the problem, I'd like to see it removed.

And I am doing things about it. Part of it is posting my concerns here, anonymously, because every little drop helps.

Our rights are vanishing (how's the 4th ammendment doing lately?) and concerned citizens have a responsibility to speak out about it.

What views do you find you can't express?

He mentions Brendan Eich who was ousted from Mozilla for his anti-gay views. I have little sympathy for someone who feels marginalized by views they choose to hold and express when I, as a gay man, could be marginalized simply for who I am, something I did NOT choose. While most people may be able to just put their political opinions on the shelf, any time discussion turns towards family or after-work hobbies I have to make a conscious decision based on who I'm talking to and how it could affect the situation.

I can be professional and work on a temporary basis with people who hold anti-gay views, and I'm not going to go out of my way to attack them. I don't know much about how Eich ran Mozilla, I couldn't say if he deserved what happened, but I know that I would not consider a job at a company with anti-gay leadership.

There was no evidence Eich was anti-gay. It was discovered he had donated to Prop 8, the California initiative which restated the status quo, that marriage is between one man and one woman, and which passed by a majority of California voters. For that political donation, he was ostracized and effectively run out of his job in Silicon Valley.

San Francisco has always been one of the most liberal cities in the country, so it is no surprise to me that a liberal political bias is inherent in Silicon Valley companies. The issue arises when this bias is combined with the enormous power some of these young companies have in order to abuse those whose political views are not the same as theirs.

From your perspective, restricting marriage to a man and a woman isn't anti-gay. And that belief isn't inherently anti-gay in my view. But the real effect of enforcing laws surrounding that view includes: missing tax breaks, missing legal protections, not being able to visit your dying partner because you aren't next of kin. So the real world outcomes of the legal enforcement of that view are anti-gay and unfair.

At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

> At this moment, why would government give any tax breaks to gay couples if most of them (even in the states, where they are allowed) do not raise children (which, I believe, is the reason for those tax breaks in the first place)?

The tax breaks for raising children (e.g., deductions for dependents, child tax credit, etc.) aren't tied to marriage, they are tied to having legally-dependent children.

Insofar as there are tax breaks for marriage rather than having children, there's a long discussion possible about what the public policy rationale for them is, but the best explanation is probably incentive to the social stability of a stabilizing relationship and the reduced risk of dependency on public support programs that comes from a mutually supportive relationship (which, even if it fails, still often comes with legal support obligations.)

These are just as valid with childless, including same-sex, marriage as with any other marriage.

So we've just got from 'evil' "votes against same-sex marrige" that Mozilla CEO guy was fired for, to "cosiders tax breaks are for families to (eventually) get children" -> "votes against gay marriages because they don't get children even if though they can", which does not look evil at all.

I could probably summarize opinions of those voted against same-sex marriage in "marriage and any tax benefits coming from it are there to support people who will eventually raise children". I see, that gay people are not happy, because opposite-sex marriages still get some benefits, but some of them do not end up having kids.

In my opinion, to separate the bugs from the meatloafs, we should separate living together and having kids legally. And the first one should be available to any kinds of partners, but should not provide any benefits, and the second should give benefits, and be positively recognized in society as "family".

But allowing gay-marriages is in no way makes lives closer to that.

But marriage also imparts many other rights not directly related to children, and not all marriages can or will produce children, hetero or otherwise. This has always been true, so arguments relating to children as the reason for marriage are quite tenuous.

Ed: in this case brendan eich either made a mistake with his donation, or is anti gay rights.

See discussion below.

Perhaps then the discussion should be about why tax breaks are erroneously associated with marriage, which in many heterosexual unions doesn't produce children (should we ban marrying a post-menopausal woman?), than about why homosexual marriage shouldn't be allowed. Marriage has many other benefits that aren't directly related to bearing children.

I agree. We should instead disallow non-bearing children couples from being married, or remove tax benefits. IMHO, we could have made it all very clear, however, most people would not understand if government would try to redefine 'family' to require kids, because common understanding of family is a deeply conservative thing, and even most liberals would not feel that change good.

I would go even further, and would provide tax credits for anyone planning to have kids in, say, the next 5 years, and I would take money back after 5 years, if no kid is out.

This is entirely unrelated to marriage, so brendan eich should be spending his money on other lobbying efforts if that was his goal.

Do you really see no problem with telling others who they can and can't marry? I can't see myself supporting or working for a CEO that thinks it's okay to donate to Propositions that support this level of imposition on other peoples'lives. I guess the board of Firefox agreed.

Would someone who supported the Iraq war be similarly ostracised? Guam? Israel? Or maybe Palestine?

I have pretty strong views on privacy, maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted?

This issue is pure liberal, SJW-ist influence, no consistency behaviour exists in the rest of the political spectrum.

Red herring. Has that happened yet? Can we talk about it when it does?

Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool" is one of the proudest achievements of the "SJW's" you so derisively mention. The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

P.S: "maybe some tech CEOs that supported prism-like initiatives should also be ousted", I would love it if that happens, unfortunately, supporting prism-like initiatives might make them more money. Board's voting against making money doesn't make sense. Maybe if we could create strong a loud dis-incentive against this, the board would react as we expect but then again Glenn Beck doesn't like this kind of corporate shaming.

> Making the bullying of homosexuals (esp in the workplace) "not cool"

We're not talking about that. We're talking about losing your job for (being found to) support[ing] prop 8.

> The message is pretty consistent. Don't punch down.

Unless you live in Palestine? No liberal ousting of pro-Israel CEOs.

Of course, the reason might be is that the issue is a complex one, there are many reasons to be pro-Israel other than wishing ill of Palestine/Palestinians. Why is that nuance not exist here? "Support prop 8? Must be homephobe then!".

If it's political, it should not be treated in this way. Any more than I should harass you for your political beliefs. SJWs belief their pet topics are different, special; That they get to behave in a different manner. I disagree.

I'd love to hear a reason for supporting Prop 8 that doesn't explicitly degrade homosexual relationships. I can't think of any and I would be uncomfortable working around Prop 8 supporters (esp if I was gay). What is this nuance you speak of? Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.

If I were uncomfortable with a co-workers religion, should they be fired?

I can't see this as any more than allowing punishment for having certain political beliefs...

> Why must all issues be treated the same? Some issues are more complex than others.

These issues are complex, they are just oversimplified to binary "with or against", "good or bad" by activists.

This is specifically not about religion or some kind of hatred for war-hawks. Both of which are choices and therefore more complex. You are still skirting the issue. Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity on the people around them? Until, I see any way for someone to care about who else can or cannot get married without being bigoted, this issue remains pretty binary.

Deal with everything on a case-by-case basis, is my point.

> Why would someone support Prop 8 without trying to enforce some level of heteronormativity

This is an appeal to ignorance. Quite simply, you don't know.

I can't attest to Eich's personal views, but giving money to maintain a status quo that is discriminatory against gays is anti-gay.

> that is discriminatory

And supporting abortion is supporting murder. And so is eating meat, etc etc.

This is all political Framing & labelling.

If it's on the ballot, its a valid politics, and so should be off the table wrt things like getting people fired.

Sure, straight white cis men can say "Oh that's all just political" but for someone who's gay, black, transgender, or female these issues effect nearly every aspect of your life. Every situation is viewed through that lens. Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you, but it is to me.

You added glib-ness to my statement, but being "political" doesn't mean it's not important, it means it's up for debate. This kind of attitude shuts down debate, demands one true opinion only.

> Things like casually mentioning something you did with your spouse last weekend might not be "political" to you

How is it political for you?

If it is political for you, shouldn't you support the idea of being able to express political views without fear of repriosal?

you mean without fear of /government/ reprisal.

There is no freedom from criticism in this country, your fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views.

If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.

In this context getting fired for political affiliation.

> fellow citizens are absolutely free to judge you, talk mean about you, and otherwise belittle your views

Even if your view is being gay is, or is not, natural. There are certain protections against freely expressing certain opinions.

> If a public official arrests you for talking about your political beliefs, then and only then have your rights been infringed upon.

Does being fined by a court after losing a lawsuit count as government reprisal?

Does getting fired for voting for Obama, or Trump count as having my right infringed?

What about being active, or critical, of LGBT activities? Can I be fired for that, so long as I'm not arrested?

>In this context getting fired for political affiliation.

Was he fired from a position in the federal government?

Private businesses are free to fire whoever they like for almost any reason (cant fire someone for refusing to break the law, etc)

Everything past that is just you feeling hurt that people dont agree with your opinions. Introducing legislation controlling private businesses hiring and firing practices is easily one of the most anti-conservative things i can think of, yet here you are claiming to be conservative and yet complaining that the government is allowing companies too much freedom to decide who can and cannot be fired and for what reason.

>Does being fined by a court after losing a lawsuit count as government reprisal?

this is super vague; in court against the government? I would imagine a fine from the federal government represents some kind of reprisal, but not necessarily related in any way to consitutional rights. Losing a court case isnt 'speech', so im not sure i understand the reasoning behind this question.

>Does getting fired for voting for Obama, or Trump count as having my right infringed?

Only if you are employed by the government.

>What about being active, or critical, of LGBT activities? Can I be fired for that, so long as I'm not arrested?

again, you can be fired for (almost) any reason by any private entity. You could get fired because the manager thought you got a shitty haircut.

Have you never heard of at-will employment?

> Private businesses are free to fire whoever they like for almost any reason

At-will, american businesses in certain cities and states, under certain restrictions. I don't see any reason not to condemn it - just because in may not be explicitly illegal in some places.

If he were an active gay-rights supporter, and fired for that, would you refuse to talk of it since in many place this isn't illegal?

Also, I'm no expert, but I'm not sure if executives are usually at-will, I was under the impression it was often contracted.

> Everything past that is just you feeling hurt that people don't agree with your opinions

Feeling hurt =/= feeling at risk of being fired, a valid concern.

> one of the most anti-conservative things i can think of

Is it?

> yet here you are claiming to be conservative

No I'm not. Plus, voting prop 8, and the vague distinction of "being conservative" are different things. Whatever my personal beliefs, I dislike the idea of this guy being fired for his political activity, I don't think you need to agree with his beliefs to take that position. Ever heard "..but I will defend to the death your right to say it"?

> and yet complaining that the government is allowing companies too much freedom

I feel there would be uproar (in the valley) if the guy was fired for supporting prop 8. In truth I don't have so many complains on what the US government does, I don't live there; I do care about political ideologies that often get transmitted across the borders though.

> Losing a court case isnt 'speech'

Where does that distinction come in? Or the constitution. I never mentioned it. Freedoms and rights exist outside of the US constitution, in other countries for example.

supporting prop 8 -> supporting opposition to

I do believe in freedom. you should be able to screw anybody you want. You should be able to have any wedding ceremonies you want, provided all parties are willing participants.

When you want the government to force parties to be involved in those ceremonies against their beliefs? That's when I have a big, big, problem, and that's what is happening.

>against their beliefs

being discriminatory is literally against one of the core beliefs of christianity. what a fucking joke.

Yup. Brendan Eich earned his place on my twit filter. Failing a sincere mea culpa and probationary period, I will never, ever care what he has to say.

PS- JavaScript is also unforgivable.

Just curious, why do you consider someone against gay marriage to be anti-gay?

for the same reason someone against marijuana legalization is anti-marijuana

Thats the political stance directly opposed to support.

That sounds like a false equivalency to me. How is being against gay marriage being against gay people? As far as I'm aware, there were a certain amount of gay people who didn't want gay marriage either. Are they anti-gay?

are drug dealers who sell marijuana and are against legalization anti-marijuana?

the answer to both questions is yes - people can have conflicting ideologies.

Being against giving someone (or something) rights is politically equivalent to being against that thing.

If im a proponent of black people not having the right to vote, am i anti black or do i just think people shouldn't vote?

I don't think so. Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people? Gay marriage != gay people. From what I've seen, the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people. Eich didn't exactly vote to make homosexuality illegal.

>Is wanting to abolish marriage altogether being against straight people?

Actually youd have to say, getting rid of marriage for straight people.

And yes, if someone was saying we should get rid of marriage for straight people specifically, they are being anti-straight people; they are in favor of stripping rights away from a specific group of people against their interest.

>the majority of people against gay marriage, religious people, aren't against gays per se, they just want to reserve the right of marriage for straight people.

Right, and jim crow wasnt against blakc people per se - just that white people wanted to preserve their water fountains and deli counters.

I think we should abolish marriage as a legal construct and adopt civil unions for government purposes. Marriage is a religious concept, and I believe in the separation of church and state.

However, I don't think the path to get there is by denying rights to other people. It's clearly anit-gay to non-religious folks, but popular teachings of the bible (and the teachings of Jesus) prevent many people from seeing it.

One of the biggest forces against marijuana legalization is from people currently in the marijuana business in one way or another. I very much doubt they're anti-marijuana.

in the political realm they certainly are

Did he explicitly express these views?

"I've felt my views become increasingly marginalized."

Still keen to hear which of your views have been marginalized.

You left off Bezos.

Good point. Apologies

There is a difference between supporting a strong defense and donating money to anti-LGBT campaigns.

So you're being marginalized for your views which marginalize other people? (See Mozilla's ex-CEO case in which he donated money towards keeping LGBT people marginalized) Oh, the irony.

> "What happened to us?"

The thing that drove me, a lifelong conservative, into the arms of Bernie Sanders; the Republican party (and the conservative group in particular) are so hard core on social issues that are to be blunt, disgusting (things like preventing homosexual marriage and abortion) and completely antithetical to the idea of "keeping government out of things." No I don't like everything the Left wants to do, but I also have no love left for the Bible thumping I'm-ignorant-and-proud-of-it crowd.

I have too many homosexual friends who I know are good people. I have too many friends who had their contraception fail and aren't in any position to raise a child, recognize that, and want to wait to accept abortion. And more and more I'm realizing that the party of "leave us alone" wants the Government involved in way more things than the other one.

I don't know when this happened, I don't know why, but if you want the explanation there it is. You guys bank harder and harder on ignorance and fear every year until now you've got a candidate like Trump, with practically no ideas and nothing to offer except new things to fear.

I won't belong to the party of fear.

Your question is probably rhetorical, but it happened because the Republican party decided they needed to bring social conservatives (especially Southern whites disaffected by the Civil Rights Act) into their coalition. See "Southern strategy" [1].

I believe anti-choice specifically was brought into the party platform during the Ford years. Outright homophobia was pretty mainstream until well into the 90s, and wasn't much of a differentiator between the parties. Democrats just soft-pedaled their position while the Republicans, specifically the fundamentalists who had grown in power since the 80s, made AIDS and gay marriage boogeyman issues in the "culture wars" [2].

For the record, both parties are coalitions and involve this kind of compromise between different constituencies (see Dems and organized labor, et al.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#1990s

Actually it wasn't, I appreciate the links. Thanks.

While the question you wanted to answer is a great question to be asking in the era of Trump, that's not the question that Beck was asking.

"What happened to us?" in this context was, "Why are supposedly conservative groups telling Facebook how to run their business, using many of the same tactics and arguments they've objected to when used by their ideological opponents?"

This very much matters in the era of Trump. The reason there's no ideological consistency is that the publicly-stated ideology is backformed from the private, unacceptable ideology of maintaining racial and economic inequality.

That's why suddenly these people are in favour of "affirmative action" when it benefits themselves; there's no principle at stake other than self-interest.

I think that's massively oversimplifying. Many Republicans really do believe things like: "A nationwide $15 minimum wage would have profoundly negative economic consequences both for small businesses unable to defray the added labor cost, and for the employees they'd otherwise be able to hire."

You can disagree with that belief, but it's not rooted in racism and classism.

In fact my Mother-in law who lived through the Great Depression on onions and milk, remembers when the Minimum Wage went into law. She remembers it as the time of the great job crash. Folks used to be able to be bicycle messengers or doormen or junkyard watchmen - many of those jobs became too expensive and disappeared. Some jobs got folded together into one, making more work for those already employed and putting others out of work. She was not a fan of Minimum Wage.

We'd like to hope that that's an empirical question which economics could answer, but that's not how the discussion tends to go. It also doesn't address the question of how viable life on current minimum wage levels is without external support or high hours, although that depends a lot on local housing costs.

Anyway, none of the parent comment chain mentions minimum wage; we started off talking about social policy and LGBT acceptance/hostility.

> I have too many friends who had their contraception fail and aren't in any position to raise a child

This is an argument for killing it off then?

did you just say that you want to keep 'government out of things', and then support Bernie Sanders?

Or perhaps it's more a matter of "if the government/public sector is going to get involved in a lot of things, they may as well be ones I can get behind".

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732166 (10 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11732430 (2 comments)

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11734973 (1 comment)

I find this article a bit ironic, given that Glenn Beck spent years at Fox News stirring up the ornery attitudes that he denounces here.

Well, his point is that he thought he was attacking people who wanted a special treatment in life, and now he found himself aligned with people who were doing that exact thing. It wasn't really about being aggressive per se.

He's always been an ultraconservative nutjob and I don't see that changing, but it's refreshing to see someone showing he can see the problems with his own argument and can self-criticize a bit. Tomorrow we'll go back to our scheduled program of people shouting at each other, but can't we happy that today is a good day, for once? :)

This page contains a link in the first paragraphs that links to http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/05/19/what-disturbed-glenn-abo... , which appears to have the same text.

Yeah that's confused me too. I don't understand why, other than advertising, I suppose

I enjoyed this piece a lot. The introspection is real. Also, what the hell is the controversy at the core here? It was never linked referenced. What spawned the meeting?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11726588

To pretend or make out that you're some kind of marginalized group, that you're being ignored or exploited or taken advantage of or just not getting what you're supposed to be entitled to, and that you're afraid and worried and unhappy -- it sounds so lame and cheap, and in the end, boring.

Never heared of this guy, but doesn't seem I missed anything.

Throws a lot of shade. He is good at the "I don't enjoy feeling like a victim. Victims are bad. Here is a list of why we are victimized."

Can you remind me again about 1984? What happened then?

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11737959 and marked it off-topic.

I guess he is talking about the book. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nineteen_Eighty-Four

I hope you're joking!

Are you fing serious? What do they teach in school nowadays?

Reagan got re-elected.

Was that good or bad?

If you're trolling, please don't.

I am trying to simply understand the true significance of 1984. Most online searches point me to George Orwell's book. I am definitely not trolling. Being young and born in the 80s it is hard to understand these kind of things.

Your best bet is to continue your online searches, as they are pointing you in the right direction.

:) I think it is the book but I have heard folks use it in a different context like the other guy who said Reagan.

Please add the pundit's name [Glenn Beck] in the submission.

Its hilarious how this comment alone exemplifies exactly what he's talking about when he says that conservative voices are being marginalized in silicon valley. We need to make sure we brand the post with his name so us cushy liberals can be protected from these mean and different viewpoints, right?

yes, but at the same time, Glen Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right. That's the whole issue with the right (IMO) is that it was hijacked by the (Hypocritical) religious people, whereas there was almost NO ONE representing the right-center folks who are fiscally conservative, yet socially liberal/acceptable (live and let live).

I already know who my state with vote for, which allows me to vote who I want to (Gary Johnson). The 2-party setup (debates, etc...) won't allow anyone in who doesn't identify to one extreme or the other.

> Glen[sic] Beck represents the more 'religious' aspect of the far-right

The article linked is not based on a religious view. In fact, the only mention of religion is a comment intended to ridicule the comments of others at the table from the right who Beck implies are being morally inconsistent.

I'm glad they didn't because my own bias likely would have caused me to skip it. I was pleasantly surprised by the blog post.

Why, I don't usually see author titles on blog posts? In fact, none of the front page links have author names right now.

In this case, it's better off without the name in the headline. Many people would probably assume that anything by Glenn Beck would be far-right nonsense (sorry, I would, even if you wouldn't) but it seems to me that it's actually an honest and fair report. I thought he made some good points.

Agree. It's a very honest post. TBH I often feel the same, from the other point of view: when did "being a leftist" started meaning "pitchforks on Twitter on the slimmest excuse"? But it did -- because, in the end, any group of humans, no matter how well-intentioned, will eventually encounter the same old problems with groupthink, enforcing rules and so on. Any group.

So it's really nice to see the occasional individual going "hang on, we weren't supposed to do this!" and self-criticize a bit, show some real doubt. Even if it's fake (it might all be a play to score honesty points, who knows), it's still nice to see and I wish more people on all sides could do it more often.

It blew me away since I read the whole thing and then got to the bottom to see who wrote it.

No, please don't. I wouldn't have read it and despite him taking more than half of the length of the article to get to the point, I was really surprised at what he said.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com