Comment by cgiles | Hacker News Reader

Comment by cgiles | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> it’s unfortunate that these type of issues are so divisive.

The reason they are so divisive is because the loud people fall into two categories: 1) people who loudly and constantly complain about these issues and for whom no amount of improvement is enough, and 2) people who think all these problems are greatly exaggerated, part of the liberal culture wars, and find it extremely annoying that anyone would bring it up.

The "silent majority" in these issues are people who say "yeah, sure, it seems fair to allow gay marriage, why not" and "let's see what we can do to improve female and minority representation but let's not jump to the conclusion that anyone in particular is to blame".

The hallmarks of being in this silent majority are:

- being generally well-intentioned

- supportive of incremental, common-sense solutions that are not zero-sum

- dislikes intense conflict and blame games

- does not take a view of the issue that makes one group of people the "heroes/victims" and another the "villains"

So, if you hear the proposal "let's allow politics at work", who do you think is actually going to speak up? That's right, the loud and annoying people that you can hear anytime by turning on the news. Ideologues for whom compromise and assuming good faith in your opponents is anathema. No thanks.

>The "silent majority" in these issues are people who say "yeah, sure, it seems fair to allow gay marriage, why not"...

For a very long time this was NOT the majority opinion despite some brave tech companies imposing policies that prevented LGBT discrimination.

Keep in mind too that many states in which tech companies do business still (with the support of the majority) legalize discrimination of LGBT in hiring, housing, lending, everything. Some states even have policies that try to prevent LGBT people from raising families.

This isn't a case of two strident extremes causing a ruckus while the well-mannered majority knows best.

Of course. Every old idea was new once, and that is the role of the activist and ideologue: to introduce new ideas for public assessment.

But these people would do well to remember that the bulk of the public they are trying to convince are not ideologues as well.

The well mannered majority may not know best but it is what is ultimately making the decisions.

And that is the problem, isn't it? If the majority had been left to make decisions, things wouldn't have changed. Things only changed because the minorities spoke up and convinced the majority that change was needed. This is why discussion, debate and dissent are necessary, because opinions should percolate and attitudes should be exposed to contrary influences.

I think a large majority of the arguments here are folks looking at this through an engineering lens, trying to optimize the workplace at the cost of minorities or discriminated groups, but shouldn't this be the other way around? Workplaces should instead be optimized for everyone to be able to work there, and inclusion is an important part of that goal.

The ideologue does what the ideologue does, and campaigns for change. That's as you said, their role is to believe that change is possible, and that their efforts will contribute to bringing it about. And the whole point of theirs is to reach out to the non ideologues. The fact that there's some bad actors out there that either die to incompetence or maliciousness make a mess of it doesn't mean that the ideology is flawed.

You are right about how change comes about. It is just that there is a time and place for it. I said that the role of the ideologue is to introduce new ideas to society, not to harp on them constantly when and where they want without restriction.

A line is crossed when they come into the workplace and make wrongthink a fireable offense. The proper place for these things to be worked out is, for the most part, in the media and on discussion boards like these. Or in private conversations like the bar. The key to understanding this is in the word "workplace": it isn't the "socialjusticeplace" or the "inclusionplace".

Conservatives have their place too. The role of progressives is to introduce new ideas. The role of conservatives is to present the argument about why these new ideas might not work. "Change" is not an automatic good. For example, all of us will undergo the change from "alive" to "dead". Personally, if it were within my power, I'd prefer not to undergo that particular change.

If I could wave a magic wand and create a space for conservative and liberal ideologues to beat each other senseless, and leave the rest of us out of it until the winner is decided, I would certainly do so.

>...make wrongthink a fireable offense. The proper place for these things to be worked out is, for the most part, in the media...

When you contend (at work) that some of your coworkers ought to be second-class citizens and be considered inherently inferior due to their biology then you absolutely should be fired. That is in clear violation of most companies' very reasonable policies. This isn't merely "stating why new ideas might not work" (also, people's existence are not "new ideas"). Furthermore, spreading these negative attitudes about your coworkers very likely contributes more negativity to the workplace than arguments that workers should be treated with similar respect and dignity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com