Hacker News Reader

Comment by bjourne | Hacker News Reader

> There is a market force pushing software companies into leftist positions (since influential demographics in the industry are strongly pro-left; also this creates positive feedback loop).

That's bullshit. Write a "manifesto" about how senior executive compensations are to high, the company should be taken over by the employees and that private ownership of properties is a crime. That's the REAL leftist position. Then send that manifesto out to thousands of employees on the company's internal mailing list and see how long you last.

People fail to see the point... Yes, there are many "leftist" positions. The above is one of them. The point is that expressing that position on an internal mailing list most certainly puts your employment in jeopardy. It doesn't matter what the position is (abortion, drug legalization, gay weddings, military attacks on civilians, foreign relations, ...), what matter is where you express it.

View on HN

It's actually not left.

These gender ideologies and the application of positive discrimination are an affront to left position. Since more than a hundred years, the left strongest identification trait was the fight to end discrimination. When now discrimination is applied in the name of diversity, that can't be a left value. This is something else, and it comes from somewhere else.

I'm not saying the position does not exist, and I'm not saying the groups purporting them don't look like left groups. But talk with some communists or socialists. They can't get behind this. My point is that this gender movement is its own political/ideological thing, that has just a very small overlap with left identification markers. It uses their style, not more.

This is probably part of the usual problem, that the left-right distinction doesn't really capture the political landscape.

I haven't seen anyone on the left (in fact, anyone aside from Ron Paul [1]) being critical and calling for the end of Affirmative Action and similar practices, which does not surprise me due to to the "no enemies to the left" formula [2]. I invite you to show me a few examples.

[1] http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/161217-paul...

[2] http://www.newoxfordreview.org/article.jsp?did=0701-whitehea...

Thanks for the links. I can't offer examples, you seem to be right in that there are mostly no public statements from the left against it.

In Germany, with which politics I'm more familiar, it is similar: The political organized left (which is marginal) is for affirmative actions (in the form of quotas for women). The only organization speaking out against them which has some left traits is the (sadly mostly neo-)liberal party.

Interestingly, and that is maybe a good description of my point, the parties implementing quotas for women over here are not left nor progressive. It's the SPD, which is a conservative central party, and the greens, which is a conservative party which fought for environmental protection in the eighties. However, the one remaining left party is also for them. My point may be weak when applied to organized political parties, but I stand behind the ideological argumentation that it is an affront to left values.

> due to to the "no enemies to the left" formula [2]

If that was (still) a thing Hillary would've won in a landslide. There's a lot more dissent in the left than the right.

Well, Bernie, the supposed candidate of the people, did endorse her, no? At the same time, Ron Paul refused to endorse Trump.

I'm not sure I understand your point.

Are you saying that Bernie endorsing Hillary is proof that there aren't conflicting views within the Democratic party?

Are you saying that Ron endorsing Trump would've been equal to Bernie supporting Hillary? Qualifications and platform doesn't factor in?

Here's an example of GOP acting as a herd and DNC acting on policy:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-2...

>Are you saying that Bernie endorsing Hillary is proof that there aren't conflicting views within the Democratic party?

It is a proof that that the Democrats knows where their real opponents are, and that is in the Republican party.

>Are you saying that Ron endorsing Trump would've been equal to Bernie supporting Hillary?

Pretty much, yes. Both have a non-mainstream and dedicated following. Both were screwed by their respective parties when they tried to get the nomination.

>Qualifications and platform doesn't factor in?

I'm not sure what do you mean by that, unless you are trying to imply that Ron Paul has a serious ideological foundation deriving from the Mises Institute and based largely on Murray Rothbard's 20th century interpretation of classical liberalism upon which the United States were founded in the 18th century, while Bernie Sanders is pushing USA towards the fate of USSR and other similar implementations of socialist ideas that always end in a disaster.

>Here's an example of GOP acting as a herd and DNC acting on policy:

I knew it's war-related even before I clicked the link. Unfortunately, the same doesn't apply in other areas.

No, the leftist position would be writing a well thought out and mild toned argument that the company has pro white male bias in interviewing (which implies that the hiring bar is lowered for white males and that some white males don't belong in the company) and that the company should create initiatives to end this bias.

Please. "No true Scotsman" is not even worth the time.

It is a current left wing argument in the United States for "diversity".

which is odd, because diverse groups are more efficient. you'd think it'd be a hardcore capitalist argument.

Diversity of thought - of which google is now less of.

"I think half of this group should not be allowed in here because of their biology" is not a diverse thought, it's a dangerous one that doesn't need to be entertained yet again (Eugenics, etc etc)

You switched your argument from one comment to another; it's unclear what your position is.

my position is very simple: sheep don't need to hear a wolf out. there is nothing to discuss.

Diversity of genetics is not the same as diversity of thought. The word is being equivocated from one context into the other.

It is an old argument that one's ethnicity determines one's personality. I can't say one that I support.

"Diversity" meaning, of course government-regulated and -enforced <identity criterion of your choice> quotas even in private businesses.

Funny enough, if he would write a manifesto about topics you suggest, he wouldn't be fired.

That's old leftist position. New left is identity-based, not class-based.

Have you met leftist organizers? No, it's still class-based.

Really? Why is it, then, that the identity politics was dominating the discourse in the USA during the last election, and likely still is? Why do those who question the ethnic discrimination disguised as "Affirmative Action" get slammed by the leftist media, such as Rand Paul by The Guardian (and others) a few years ago?

To be honest I don't think I'd describe any of our prominent media as leftist. Maybe liberal? Maybe just neurotic. Whatever it is, what you're describing isn't really a left thing.

Liberal? Founding Fathers were liberals, I wouldn't call these modern oppression-privilege radicals 'liberals'.

Just to clarify: I do have some respect for some ideas of the class-based left, unlike for the identity-based one. Roughly speaking, I do agree (though for a different reason) with the idea that the intellectual property should not exist.

Immigration is a perfect example of how the left has traded working class issues for identity politics.

FFS, this story itself is a perfect example. Here we have a corporation firing an employee for 'wrong' speech - and the left is in full support.

That's a class issue, and the left has clearly sided with corporations over the working class.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com