Hacker News Reader

Comment by nodesocket | Hacker News Reader

I find it a bit absurd when I hear pundits and media types claim that liberal bias doesn't exists in silicon valley tech companies (top to bottom). As somebody who lived in San Francisco for five plus years, I can firmly attest it is more than bias. It's utter disdain, hatred, and prejudice. Just look at how James Damore was handled it should be clear that diversity of thought and individualism is not accepted. It's a complete echo chamber of shaming culture who stand on a pedestal of moral superiority.

Another example, Antirez has been absolutely mob shamed into changing master/slave in Redis by a Google employee. If you are against the change because it's an industry standard you are called a racist.

View on HN

I don't think anyone claims Californians working in SF aren't liberal.

What you really mean is you want to be a mildly bigoted in peace and/or demand attention because historically disadvantaged groups are getting attention without any backlash while simultaneously telling others to get over their own insecurities. When people say you have a persecution complex you think its a liberal agenda.

Case in point, no one thinks caring about industry standards makes you racist. Not caring about what makes others uncomfortable so you don't have to learn a new word is what's frustrating. The appropriate response to a silly request like that is "oh, uh, sure whatever. Just update the wiki."

It's not just a simple case of 'update the wiki'. You've actually got to modify the code and potentially break already established APIs (and break scripts that parse redis logs).

But putting aside the fact that it's not costless to make these sorts of changes, it's also pointless. These people will never be satisfied. They're not offended; they're bullies who want to control other people and virtue signal to their bully friends. Giving in to their 'little change' just encourages more bullying, more salami-slicing, more 'little changes' (e.g. removing any reference to the word 'whitelist', instituting a code of conduct etc.).

Redis is open-source: if their political sensibilities are so offended, they can fork the project (like ayojs for example, https://github.com/ayojs/ayo).

By "Update the wiki" I do also mean "sure just do the work yourself." We're saying the same thing.

That said, fighting against things you claim to have no preference over you're also partaking in the same control/power trip shenanigans. That's when things really go off the rails.

Not really.

It's not the particular choice of words that bothers people. It's the fact that they either have to submit to the frivolous power-trippers or die on a hill they don't particularly want to, in this case defending the word 'slave'.

You're saying they should just submit, despite the fact that they realise the whole point of it all just is their submission.

In other words, submit to the bully because, otherwise, you're just as bad as him.

The rub is you really don't know what their motivation is. You can suspect but if they're willing to put in the all the work, it costs you nothing.

Going on some crusade for no gain or loss and only to deny someone else is just whipping up drama. If you have legitimate complaints, make them.

This doesn't have anything to do with politics. Any argument based around "I don't care so you shouldn't either" is bound to cause issues.

Yes. I don't know their motivation the same way a man is presumed innocent in a court.

But people are not courts. So I do not need, not is it practical, to act like one.

However, I do know the justifications their proponents present for it. And I do know that they're frivolous. They just claim it will somehow make the world better.

They set up a conjecture - that abstract people abstractly suffer when they read those words - and proceed to impose a real action based on the conjecture: we have to delete the words.

Notice how no actual person is presented has having suffered from reading these words in Python code, let alone questioned (like a witness in a court, btw). So no actual suffering is presented.

Yet, the actions, the imposition, is concrete. It is actual. Some very actual people will have something imposed on them directly and indirectly because of this frivolous conjecture.

And the conjecture is frivolous precisely because it is an extraordinary claim - that people suffer when they read 'slave' in the context of Python code - that is presented without a single shred of anecdotal evidence, let alone proof or demonstration.

>The appropriate response to a silly request like that is "oh, uh, sure whatever. Just update the wiki."

The appropriate response to people being bothered by words is for them to grow a thicker skin. I want the world to be a better place, and I want that to happen by making individuals stronger. Individuals grow weaker if you coddle them in every way imaginable. So I find your request to change a word that upsets people disgusting and morally wrong, and that's why I won't change it.

So no, it's not just a matter of just saying "sure whatever".

> What you really mean is you want to be a mildly bigoted

Please don't tell anyone else 'what they really mean'.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I live in the Bay Area, I grew up in San Francisco, I'm firmly left-leaning in much of my political views.

I upvoted your comment because in my opinion you are right, although overstating it a bit.

The "Left Coast" is biased. There is a lot of tribal knee-jerk reactivity, and there are rabid haters. (Yeah yeah the right has 'em too. There's a reason Tim Chevlier and David Gudeman were both fired. Not my point.)

"Not all lefties" though, okay?

Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment. It's already getting downvoted unfortunately. The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing. How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?

How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?

What obligation do you think that a company should have to respect the political leanings of its employees? While it might be in a company's self-interest not to alienate talented employees with minority political beliefs, do you believe it should be forbidden for the company to "choose sides"?

Just as liberals like to promote social justice, I think it's not fair to conservatives that are harassed, outed, and unfairly represented. Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally?

Not that I agree but certainly since the Citizens United ruling.

Since when is it ok for a company to hold a political rally?

There are at least two separate angles, legal and moral.

I'm certainly not aware of all the laws, but I think 'jayd16' in the sibling is right that it's been definitely legal under federal law for a company to express support for a particular party or candidate at least since the Citizen's United decision. California state law may override this with regard to a "rally" with it's "hostile workplace" laws, but I don't think there is clear precedent. This seems like reasonable overview article on the legal situation: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/on-leadership/wp/2016/10...

Morally, I personally view it mostly from the angle of "free association". For me, if a group of people who run a company want to express their support for a candidate, they should be allowed to do so even if not all the employees agree. If the group's goal is primarily monetary, I'd expect that they'd avoid alienating employees because of their political beliefs, but I don't think it should be forbidden for them to have other priorities, even if it causes certain employees to feel unwelcome. This isn't great, but it's better (in my mind) than the alternative of forcing the larger group to silence themselves.

I was asking you what your thoughts were on it, because currently the usual pairing is "conservative" and "pro-Citizen's United". You seem to be pro-conservative (or at least concerned about the treatment of conservative employees) but against allowing corporations to express political preference. Thus I was wondering where the lines are for you.

You act like Trump didn't quickly move to travel bans and visa shenanigans that have a serious impact on employees. Worrying about harshing a victory buzz is not a priority.

I'm not sure why you think politics doesn't effect Google and the people who work there or why concerns shouldn't be addressed in an all hands.

> Thank you for understanding the thesis of my comment.

Cheers! I wanted to back you up from my side of the aisle. I've seen some pretty shabby behaviour from my own and I'll help you call it out.

> It's already getting downvoted unfortunately.

Well, you were pretty salty. :-)

> The most absurd thing to me is how is this kind of rhetoric acceptable at a company sponsored event? It is obviously politically motivated and totally biased. One speaker nearly started crying about Hillary losing.

Well, it was a very strange moment. Yosemite Sam had just been elected, proving that we're definitely stuck in Timeline XX7J5, the really shitty one, and emotions were raw. Judgement faltered.

I myself nearly wound up sitting in the middle of the street wearing nothing but an adult diaper and sign around my neck that read "Give me food or kill me."

> How is that fair to employees at Google that are conservative?

It's not. It's actually pretty gross. And again, I'm saying this as a left-leaning person who was appalled by the election results. All it takes to understand how messed up this is (if you don't already) is to try to imagine a bunch of right-wing people doing the same thing if Clinton had been elected.

We were talking about this exact subject one day in our cubicle farm and someone pointed out that there were no doubt people in the room who had voted for Trump. I piped up in my best Michael Palin voice, "A witch! Burn 'em!" and we all had a chuckle, but there was nervous edge.

No one admitted to voting Republican though.

Tribalism sucks.

(But Trump makes me miss Dick Cheney.)

How is Trump winning fair to the Iranian immigrants working at Google?

"Utter disdain, hatred, and prejudice" is an entirely appropriate reaction to someone trying to upend your life through immigration policy.

mob shamed by a Google employee?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com