Comment by samvher | Hacker News Reader

Comment by samvher | Hacker News Reader

I might be one of these progressive activists, and this is interesting to read and reflect on. I am quite vocal about culture, hiring, compensation etc, though I would definitely not say that I feel "confident being vocal" - it actually feels very exposed and quite vulnerable (in part because others don't necessarily share their own views). The reason I'm still vocal about it is that I care, I would feel much more satisfied if I can look back on my working life and feel like I was able to introduce structural improvements than if all I see is that I did what I was told and grew my bank account.

I am very worried about inequality and climate change causing massive issues down the road and the current system does not seem sufficiently equipped to address this - the "short term productivity" signal seems unlikely to lead to a solution by itself. So I guess fear plays a role as well.

What I would definitely not want is a mono-culture where everyone thinks like me, or large scale central planning, or anything of that kind. But I am desperate to find a feasible gradual path from where we are now to something more sustainable - if we don't find something gradual, I'm afraid change will be sudden and uncontrollable.

I know there is a lot of frustration about cancel culture, political correctness, virtue signaling, social justice warriors, etc. I think the issue here is mainly one of polarization and lack of effective discourse - it's easier to call people names than engage thoughtfully (which goes both ways). I hope we will find a way to get better at this collectively.

So how do you feel that you now know your activism is oppressing your fellow work mates? Will you calm down?

What are some of the points you’re explicitly vocal about?

To some extent I think these are things that should be discussed and addressed internally rather than externally so I'll try to be generic. Key things are

(1) I'm a strong believer that anyone with a job should be easily able to get health insurance and be able to send their children to university (i.e. even if law doesn't enforce it I think a decent minimum wage for all employees is appropriate)

(2) people doing work of similar value should get similar compensation in the same organization/on the same team (i.e. location based pay adjustments should be minimal at most)

(3) hiring should be diverse w.r.t. background/class/education (i.e. search widely and resist hiring people's friends)

I think these are not just moral issues, I think a culture of fairness also benefits morale and gives people more confidence to contribute and feel heard. And I think these kinds of issues become especially important when considering public organizations and non-profits.

FWIW your views are not what I think of when I hear the phrase 'progressive activist'. I tend to think of someone who is concerned almost exclusively with race, gender and sexuality.

I think a lot of this boils down to power and bias, and a lot of the discussion around race/gender/sexuality seems overly simplified (they are correlated with certain patterns of power and bias, but not perfectly so). I think the aspect of class is generally underappreciated in public discussions, and in my context the minimum-wage and pay-equity concerns have a pretty significant racial component (when I refer to location adjustments that's primarily about continents, not urban/rural).

> FWIW your views are not what I think of when I hear the phrase 'progressive activist'.

They are... you might just be confusing an actual progressive activist with someone whose sociology degree comes from Twitter.

That's pretty wholesome and reasonable, but I don't think that's they type of behavior and views tha people are worried about.

I have a feeling the type of progressiveness that people are concerned about is this kind:

> "Sixteen percent [of progressives] have tried to have something banned, versus a seven percent national average.

>"We asked whether it is “fair or unfair for people who say grossly offensive things to be at risk of losing their livelihoods?” Nationally, 48 percent believe it is “fair,” but this figure rises to 65 percent for social democrat-aligned Labour voters, compared with 39 percent for right-leaning Conservative voters."

>"Our polling found that while the most popular word selected, from a list of nine, by Conservatives to describe people “with strongly different political views to my own” was “honest” (39 percent), the most popular among Labour voters was “closed minded” (28 percent)"

As someone who is very much not one of the 13%, I'm curious: how would you react to objections and disagreement on those issues?

Objections and disagreements are pretty common (many of the things that I would like to change are not easily compatible with neoliberalism/the modern corporation). I try to use them as learning opportunities to understand other people's viewpoints and refine/revise my own. I do get frustrated as well though, sometimes things seem self-evident to me and then it's painful when that view is not shared - in some cases it's not about arguments but about the underlying value systems from which people derive their arguments (e.g. what does fair mean to a person). These things are definitely not easy to talk about and I also don't think that I always manage to find the right tone or approach, but I try to be persistent and adjust as I find out how things work.

As someone who is definitely considered "a progressive activist" I may add my 2cents:

I am not quite sure what you mean with objections? If you mean that people are not willing to talk about those things: I accept it, and stop talking about it. (Aslong as it is no direct issue like those people using the N-word, or being racist in general.)

About disagreement: It would be pretty strange if everyone would have the same opionion? I ask people about their reasons and try to understand their point of view. If they have valid arguments that I was not aware of, I am open to change my opinion.

BUT: If people come at me saying: Climate Change is a hoax, The complete media and science is controlled by the elites etc... Then i stop talking to them, as they would never consider an argument opposing to their opinion as valid.

AND: If someone considers people inferior only because of their gender, their race or their religion? Then I tell them indirectly, to go and **** themselfs.*

* At work I would try to be more diplomatic. Otherwise a whole team dynamic could be destroyed. But In my personal environment, I am as direct as possible. I do not want those people in my life.

> If someone considers people inferior only because of their gender, their race or their religion?

Would something like the Danmore memo[1] count?

[1] https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/3914586-Googles-Ideo...

Due to an high amount of work I have to do I was only able to skim through the memo.

It seams as if the memo was written in a good intention. What I took away from the text is that he mostly considers people different, not inferior, because of their gender. It would be dumb to completly disagree with that. I think rational and follow science, therefore I agree on some off his points. I disagree with the extend of his conclusions and imo he sometimes mixes up correlation and causality.

But those are all things one could discuss. He sounds like reasonable guy.

Google considered that memo an unacceptable thing to post internally and fired him.

Rereading the memo, I definetly missed some points earlier.

Things like:

- "We need to stop assuming that gender gaps imply sexism."

- Followed by him arguing that the attemp to reduce the gender gap (Which is imo clearly a result of sexism) is discriminating the poor white man.

- On Top the strange "Woman on average" part connected to "Once we acknowledge that not all differences are socially constructed or due to discrimination"

My view on the tone of the whole memo changed. One could interpret it, as a "white guy whining about people taking his century old priviledges away".

BUT: I would need to talk with him about it, to really know what his intention was. Again, ignoring his short reference to the IQ tests, I did not have the feeling that he was openly considering certain people inferior. I would still be open to talk to him.

If Google fired him, just for this memo and not because of a combination of other things he said and did, it would be exeggerated. And it would support at least his points on "alienating conservatives"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com