Hacker News Reader

Comment by saget | Hacker News Reader

They key difference between Nashville and SV is Nashville doesn't claim to be anything but what's it is. SV culture claims to be inclusive and value diversity of thought. However, plenty of people experience exactly the opposite of this and that makes people feel lied to. Eventually the true SV culture will become more understood but until then I can understand people's frustrations

View on HN

My perspective as someone not living in California: I imagine that if there is increasing pushback against conservative values it is because the liberal ideology has been suppressed across most of the country and more pressure is being released in the few places where it is still politically preferable. If democrats sweep in the next few years (I am not so sure that will happen) then I also imagine the atmosphere in SV will cool down a bit. However, the mix of capital and somewhat radical liberal politics increase the odds of strange outcomes.

The real problem is increasing polarization of the Congress since Gingrich. We are going to keep flipping back and forth between Republican domination and Democrat domination rather than slight right majority and slight left majority with great debates and comprises until some key issues with the electoral process and congressional procedure are fixed.

I think the end result is an overhaul and optimization of government by sensible, human-oriented technologists but that is a few decades and several bitcoin bubbles away.

> SV culture claims to be inclusive and value diversity of thought

I don't see many people in SV culture claiming to value "diversity of thought". They value diversity of culture, races, sexual identities, etc. But not thought (unfortunately).

That said, other posters are 100% correct when they write that rural America is just as intolerant, only in the other direction. And you don't see many people moving to those areas and attacking their lack of thought diversity (probably because they'd get shunned, at best, or shot, at worst).

They might not directly claim to value diversity of thought, however accusations of "bigotry" seem to me to be the most common insult/label applied by progressives to non-progressives, possibly behind only "Nazi".

If someone is using "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself" as an insult, it only makes sense to assume they are claiming that they are different.

Where has SV claimed to be tolerant of conservative thought? The suggestion that it claims to or ought to welcome racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-welfare-state politics did not appear to arrive on the scene until the fallout of the Damore memo.

>racist/sexist/homophobic/anti-welfare-state politics

This is not exactly what "conservative thought" is, but the conflation does nicely demonstrate SV's toxic mix of ignorance and intolerance.

Thiel is pretty deep into the 'neoreactionary' subculture with a distinct anti-democratic and racist bent. You're right to say that this isn't exactly conservative thought, but it is the sort of thought that comes from the people who are criticising the valley from the inside. The Curtis Yarvin types seem to be involved in the newest criticism against 'valley liberalism' more than genuinely conservative groups.

I've never seen much opposition to your run off the mill conservatism you find anywhere in the business world.

He well might be, although the accusations of racism all seem to point at some very anciuent and rather vague hearsay.

Economically SV may not be too far from the mainstream, because really, if you drive away not only Thiel but the rest of VCs, who's gonna throw millions on your new world-changing blockchain crowdsourced augmented-reality chat app?!

Socially, though, SV positions itself far, far left of not only mainstream, but even of the outer fringes of common sense. Which comes out quite ironic in the end, e.g. when you look at tyhe stuff in Damore's lawsuit (the ones still proceeding) vs. the fact that Google is simultaneously being sued for underpaying women.

You'll find plenty of support for disruption of burdensome and anti-consumer regulatory regimes (see: ridesharing), a mix of free traders and protectionists, opponents of price controls, advocates to unleash private capital to fix societal problems (see: YIMBYs), advocates to reduce the administrative burden of redistribution schemes (see: UBI), and a number of other center-right positions.

What gets you in trouble here is talking about pro-life family values, personal responsibility, and how marginalized groups who are over/under represented in certain outcomes must deserve it.

When it comes to really big money principles often go right out the window...

There might be some diversity of economic matterts; depends on whether you make money on walking through the outer fringes of legality (e.g. AirBnB) or not. On social issues that you mention SV is far more of an echo chamber.

Although I do wonder where you're getting the idea about groups that "deserve it". Personal responsibility, vs. identity politics seems to be a rather large dividing line between liberals and conservatives, and "deserve it" as applied to groups is a liberal belief, not conservative.

You can support diversity of thought and still be against billionaires who shut down media outlets and make additional billions off government surveillance and pervasive tracking of individuals (read: minorities)

How about billionaires who rightfully sue publications that publicly reveal their sexual identity (without permission) in the context that can put the person's life in danger (Thiel visiting Saudi Arabia at the time)? What about publications being sued for publicly releasing private sex tapes of people without their permission and refusing to take them down at the request?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com