"not being able to escape anxiety-inducing situations"
This sounds like an emotionally abusive environment unless you happen to agree with the political agenda being pushed. To feel socially pressured to go along or else be ostracized from your work is fairly awful.I'm fortunate that I've worked in a rather politically balanced industry which naturally turns out to be apolitical as a consequence of mere demographics.
Yeah, 100%. Were you in California last summer? “Silence is violence” was the phrase of the day. I’ve got about a gazillion stories from living in San Francisco for three years.
Since last year, I've stopped using social media like FB. When the summer came around, my friends were posting political stuff online and noticed I wasn't interacting with it. My phone would then blow up with messages along the theme of: "are you showing your real self by not supporting x?".
Are they in a cult? That sounds like some Scientology shit.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demonizing_the_enemy [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_bombing
So many stories.
My skip level manager had me in a 1-on-1 once and said something along the lines: “you probably got the green card because Trump likes your demographic”. (I have an EB-1 extraordinary ability green card, and I assume they were talking about me being straight and white). What the fuck am I supposed to say there? Was absolutely speechless. Moments like that are basically shit tests: “are you one of us?” Pretty sure I failed that test. Oh well.
One time quite recently I shared a Joe Rogan podcast on slack (Moxie from Signal was on there). I then went to sleep. Man, when I woke up the thread was popping with “I refuse to click on this link”, “Joe Rogan is a transphobe”. Someone posting stories about Joe Rogan being friends with Alex Jones and how problematic that is. Nothing to do with the actual podcast episode with Moxie. If anything, it was hilariously ironic because they were talking about how Signal provides privacy for people and how, if you don’t have privacy, people will scrutinise everything you’ve ever said and find ways to #cancel you. Just bizarre. I couldn’t even be bothered to respond.
Honestly most stories at work are just the accumulation of tiny comments here and there. Just the odd joke about conservatives or the implicit assumption you agree with them. One time some girl at work told me “I can tell you’re not as liberal as us”. I asked her why, because I definitely wasn’t but I also definitely didn’t bother arguing at work. She said she could just tell by my vibe. I mean it’s true. Fair play to her I guess.
The company had hired a diversity officer and she began an initiative that requierd all company employees take an optional cultural course that was essentially something about power dynamics between culture/race. Since it wasn't really relevant to my role, I decided not to take the course as it was optional... until I found out it wasn't. I started receiving emails and phone calls from the diversity officer that I should take the course. I thought it was a bit weird and just ignored her. She then contacted my boss and told her to tell me to take the course. Starting to get pissed off, I asked my boss if the course was option, she said yes, then I said I'm not taking it.
I'm mixed race with mainly French and Indian ancestry and while I can pass for full white (albeit a white person that spends time in the sun), my skin is tanned just enough that I can pass for other ethnic groups as well. However, my name is undoubtedly French.
I then received an email from the diversity officer saying that I was an example of a problematic white person and that I was probably ignoring her because she was female and Indian. Then I was contacted by HR for discriminatory conduct and told to report to their office. When I showed up at the office, I could visibly see they were confused as they were clearly expecting someone that didn't look like me. Luckily for me, some of my family is Hindu and I happened to be wearing a religious bracelet I received as a present and I was basically able to fend off their accusations of racism and whatnot. Left the company shortly afterwards.
"Joe is an evil person who will introduce you to evil things! We do not speak of him here."
"Are you a true believer or not?"
"We can tell you're not a devoted Scientologist."
"Fall in line, or we'll bully and ostracize you."
That's society in general, not just work.
https://48laws-of-power.blogspot.com/2011/05/law-38-think-as...
Take the letter people, for example. They will ridicule people for not understanding the difference between G and Q, for example. Phrases like "if you don't know what X means, you must live under a rock" are common.
Then you have the pronoun people who tell us anyone can choose any set of pronouns they like. They tell it's easy to relearn your native language and remember a set of pronouns for each and every person you interact with, from a basically infinite set of combinations.
I'm reminded of the secret languages children invent. But these are now adults doing it, at work. It's especially difficult for older people to change the language they use and can make them feel thoroughly alienated.
In case it's helpful: not all your comments do this, nor even all your comments on divisive topics. When you stick to describing your personal experience, for example, it's fine. But when you call names, denounce others, or pour snark and vitriol, those things are not fine—and you've done a ton of that on HN. That's not cool!
We probably would have re-banned you by now, except I imagine I see signs of improvement here and there. Please improve further. It's not in your interest to make this place nastier; that's guaranteed to make it less interesting, and the odds of it being interesting are the only reason for any of us to come here.
It's absolutely the opposite of "relearning" in relative complexity/difficulty.
> remember a set of pronouns for each and every person you interact with, from a basically infinite set of combinations.
I've literally never met a person of alternative pronouns in real life (both the "unintuitive" variety and the "made up" variety), surely you are exaggerating with unreasonable hyperbole.
> Phrases like "if you don't know what X means, you must live under a rock" are common.
I've gotten this constantly my entire life, no matter how obscure or unimportant the information, more often sports and non political things than politics.
I have. But it's not just the ones with alternative pronouns. Some of them have standard pronouns but still sign their email with them at the end. The implication is I shouldn't assume their pronouns and they can change them at any time.
> I've gotten this constantly my entire life, no matter how obscure or unimportant the information, more often sports and non political things than politics.
At work? Has your career ever been affected by your lack of knowledge about snooker?
You mean LGBT+?
Because dang that's an incredibly insulting way to completely dismiss everyone who isn't straight then
Why not?
We didn't connect with coworkers outside work, I think, because social media didn't exist and so we held on more to earlier friendships longer and actually were more open to acquainting ourselves to new strangers we met in public.
The old "can I have your number" days.
I think politics were present in the office much, because pre-social media, there was no conduit to get bombarded with hyperbolic political messages. ...and thus those people who were very political were not invited to social gatherings more frequently. ...something you can't do as easily on social media.
We'll see.
People are politics, especially in a free land like ours. No politics at work is unrealistic, I believe.
This is one my main gripes with conservatives right now. You go to any of the places you congregate and alongside the more reasonable scepticism towards woke culture, there’s this constant talk of the rise of “neo-marxism”
I have seen zero evidence for this. None
Besides very basic issues like minimum wage, on the whole, the new left does not care about economics. There’s the occasional “bad capitalism bad” meme or tweet, but that’s the extent of it
This whole neomarxism shit just seems like a confluence of:
1. it’s bait to conservatives, so it gets attention
2. If you don’t like BLM etc, it’s much easier to just label them as marxists, rather than actually dismantle their flimsy ideology
3. it’s probably partially a reaction to the media calling Trump a fascist
In conclusion, it’s convenient for a lot of the right to confuse identity politics with marxism, and it puts me off because it’s lazy and ignorant
At any rate, it's mostly because Marxism is not really an economic ideology, even though communism is often presented as an alternative to capitalism. Communism is arguably not an economic system at all given the absolutely minimal detail Marx provided about how a communist economy was actually meant to work. Marxism is best understood as a packaged set of views about the current state of the world and human nature, the correct/perfect state of the world and human nature, and a plan for how to get from here to there.
A key component of Marxist thought is that the current state of the world is one of "alienation" (today we would say oppression), in which a small minority subtly oppress the majority in such a way that the majority don't realize they're oppressed. But if they were to realize, they could rise up and via a revolution overthrow their oppressors. This would establish a transient state (the dictatorship of the proletariat) that would eventually, once society was finished being transformed, sort of melt away leaving communism as a kind of superior form of existence in which there's no oppression, human nature has fundamentally changed and as a consequence everyone is equal.
It's that last bit that gets the bulk of the attention because, firstly, the rest is kind of vague, and secondly, the socialist revolutionaries were expected to deliver obvious, real-world benefits for their revolution and focused on the "everyone is economically equal" bit as something that could be achieved via large scale government action. But to Marx that was only one part of it. The rest was about human nature.
The modern left, especially in Silicon Valley, is easily identifiable as a new variant of this basic ideology:
- Society is split into oppressors (white men) and everyone else (women, other races). People are always one of these groups and cannot move between them. Many oppressed people don't believe they're oppressed, but that's because they've been deceived and it's very important to make them realize that white men are oppressing them.
- People are either really good, or really bad, and people who are really bad (anyone who doesn't subscribe to this ideology) need to be suppressed, expelled, or silenced in various ways.
- The world is suffering under vaguely defined oppressive forces (Marx: imperialism, the Woke: patriarchy/systemic racism). If these forces are defeated, humanity will be elevated to a superior form of existence.
- Exceptionally aggressive "with us or against us" tactics are legitimate and even required to reach this state.
There are a bunch of other similarities, but that's the gist.
However, I think you’ve misunderstood BLM at its core. BLM is not a specific group like the GOP or the NRA. Maybe it was originally, and maybe it nominally still is, but BLM is a slogan. It’s a label. It’s more like calling yourself left-wing, or right-wing.
If I say I’m left-wing, do you assume I have the same views as the people who sat in the left wing of the French parliament all those years ago?
So if I say “Black Lives Matter”, should you assume that I believe the same as some nameless, faceless founder that I don’t know?
Just to add a bit of real life evidence to that, I don’t know if you’ve met the kind of people that associate themselves with black lives matter, but being a student, I have, a lot. They have no interest in Marxism, let me tell you
And in regards to your comment that Marxism isn’t economic: I don’t like to directly call people wrong, because it’s abrasive and rarely changes anything, but no, you’re completely wrong.
Marxism is primarily about the distribution of wealth in society. The name of the book is ‘Das Kapital’. It’s not ‘Das Identity’, or ‘Das Oppressors’. It’s ‘The Capital’. It’s a book analysing who holds the money and means of production in society and how that capital is distributed amongst the classes. Marx was an economist.
and I take your point that if you extrapolate some of Marx’s views outwards, they could be applied to what blm people stand for. However, that is not marxism. That is one aspect of Marxism, extrapolated outwards and applied to something different.
Look at it this way: Plenty of right-wing anti-semites believe that the world is secretly oppressed by a small minority of jews. Would you call them Marxists, or neo-marxists?
Now finally, onto your parallels between the silicon valley ideology that’s risen up and Marxism. First of all, there’s an inherent extremely obvious contradiction. Silicon valley is full of massive capital holding corporations, who aggressively crush any attempts to unionise, who are the antithesis of marx’s primary goals. Even if the ideology shares some vague themes with communism, in my opinion, that is easily enough to scratch off a Marxist label. Easily.
Onto your actual parallels: 1. this is just a repeat of above. Sure it’s true, and sure it’s a parallel, but it’s nowhere near enough to start throwing round the word marxist
2. that may have been an aspect of communist societies, but it’s also an aspect of fascist societies, and basically any society who had something to hide. Besides, we’re talking about Marxism, not in-practice communism
3. First, Marx’s feud wasn’t with imperialism, it was with the class system. I’m sure he didn’t like imperialism either, but that wasn’t his primary enemy. Anyway, that’s beside the point. I’ve never heard anything like that from a BLM or new left/silicon valley type. They’re very interested in short term aesthetic wins (pulling down statues, apologies from politicians etc etc) and I really don’t think many of them have considered their long-term goals. This is a conversation I’ve had a few times. I posit that surely the end-goal should be to, outside of practicalities, forget race/gender/sexuality even exists in the first place, and they aren’t really sure and don’t seem to have thought about it
Additionally, achieving your goals and converting the world to your mindset is not an invention of Marx, and not even remotely exclusive to marxists
4. this also is hardly unique to the ideology, or to Marxism, or any group. the Nazis were the same. So are the Westboro baptist church. Are they Marxists?
To take the WBC point further, look at those parallels again. How many of them apply to the Westboro Baptist Church, or the Nazis, or most cults?
You may think that’s against my argument, but it’s not. I’m not here to defend the new left or BLM. They do share some themes with cults and bad groups from history, and I think their ideology is borderline madness. (read up on critical race theory). That doesn’t make them Marxists though. It just doesn’t
I agree it's reasonable to view BLM as a leaderless social movement, and that the existence of people who claim to speak for it is a bit suspicious. But the original point I was responding to was that neo-Marxism is some sort of wacky label that isn't justified by anything, and that labelling BLM as neo-Marxist is a sort of unjustified smear that's designed to bait conservatives. To address this point, it's not necessary to actually win the argument that BLM is a Marxist movement, only to point out why people might genuinely believe it without having been baited into it. And I think the fact that the people who own the websites and claim to speak for the movement say they're Marxists is sufficient to make that a justifiable claim, even if it may be debatable and certainly not the full story.
You're right that Marx didn't explicitly identify his work as being about identity politics. However, Marx wasn't really a student of economics in the way modern economists would recognize. He showed very little interest in the mechanics of how business worked, to the extent that when his friend Engels invited him to visit one of his factories Marx declined. In fact, I believe there's no evidence Marx ever actually spent time in places where the working classes utilized the means of production, even though his entire philosophy revolved around them. Marx viewed capital almost exclusively through the lens of class struggle. Capital was something that some people had lots of because they oppressed other people, and it really wasn't much more complicated than that. In particular his world view had nothing in it that justified the existence of capitalists - he assigned zero value to their role as coordinators and planners.
A part of your argument is that some of these attributes could apply to "right wing anti-semites" and you mention Nazis in a few places. I actually believe the Nazis were not right wing at all, for example if you read their propaganda magazine (Signal) it is basically a standard socialist critique of western culture, which they called imperialism, naturally, and obviously the party called itself the Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei. However last time I made that argument on HN I got slapped by dang so let's put that to one side here, as it's apparently taboo.
W.R.T. short term vs long term goals. Yes, it's true, Marx was a much longer term thinker than the current crop of neo-Marxists. He had a sweeping view of human history and was happy to make long-range predictions about the inevitability of revolution. There's nothing like that anywhere in the (supposedly) neo-Marxist philosophy. However, I think a critic of Marx would observe that his long term plans were extremely vague. Marx was big on criticism of capitalism and short on detail about communism which is one reason for the enduring popularity of "regime X wasn't really communism" as an argument. The Communist Manifesto was about as close as it got, and that boiled down to a bunch of bullet points that could be enumerated in 60 seconds flat. It was a long way from a real plan. It's more than the new Left have (right now), but not much more.
At any rate, to say it again, the point here is not really to thrash out what Marxism is or isn't. The point is, there are sufficient parallels that even if you disagree with the argument it's obvious why plenty of people make it. It's not like this idea was just invented out of nothing for nefarious reasons. People who conspicuously subscribe to BLM/feminist/new left thinking describe the world in very similar ways to how Marx did, are invariably voting for policies closer to his policies, and some of them literally say "we are Marxists". That's sufficient for the arguments to be made in good faith even if they're wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Western_Marxism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_theory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Left
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_long_march_through_the_ins...
BLM co-founder Patrisse Cullors (on the news recently for her luxury-home purchasing spree) openly describes herself as a trained Marxist. The other BLM co-founder, Opal Tometi, is chummy with the Maduro regime in my home country.
Compare BLM's comments on family structure to Engels' The Origin of the Family and the connection cannot be more obvious.
You can hate that argument, people can still accuse you of it and they might be right.
And, “there’s nothing we can do” isn’t true for the United States citizens who can vote the most powerful economy/military in the world.
I don’t think we should be making rudeness illegal. On the other hand, professors absolutely shouldn’t be able to sue their institution for punishing them for it. There’s a middle ground
The question in this case is "should it be illegal to discipline an employee for deliberately misgendering a student?" At least one federal circuit court found that it is illegal for the university to discipline a professor for deliberately misgendering a student multiple times.
This is all to say, being deliberately misgendered by a coworker is a real problem. A private employer would not be required by law to fire or discipline an employee who was doing the same thing as this professor. So for the employer, deciding whether or not to discipline an employee who deliberately misgenders a coworker is "a political issue"
People who approach others like this are putting themselves out there. They are just as at risk, if not more, as you would be by expressing your own responses in a non threatening way. If you don't know how to do that, I suggest you learn. It'll give you a voice at work.
Please, people, do NOT be honest about your conservative or non-woke political positions in this industry. You will absolutely be punished for them by your peers. It is not in any situation ever worth it. Clock in, clock out, take the check, and always always always keep interviewing constantly because they will have no issues firing you arbitrarily.
Work at a large enough company and the woke literally have an entire division of the company (DEI) dedicated to finding reasons not to hire you in the first place, reasons to not promote you, and identifying ways in which your opinions make others feel "unsafe", etc. The entire deck is stacked against you unless you blend in.
"Bring your whole self to work" is bait. It's how they identify friend and foe. Do not fall for it. Pretend to be apolitical if you must. It probably won't work 100%, but giving up plausible deniability is not in your interest.
Being honest and disagreeing would not be as heroic as refusing to “just go along with the nazis”, but just ignoring them is also a little harder than ignoring some crazy preacher on the street. It’s an awkward middle ground that just slowly erodes your soul and I find myself looking for friends as outlets to moan to when I hear something particularly ridiculous. But I absolutely hate feeling weak that I need to remain silent, or feeling like I’m in the damn French resistance or something when I actually have pretty moderate views. Worst of all? I say what I think to people who I respect enough as adults to be able to take it. But when I remain silent it’s basically because I think they’re emotionally too immature to take it.
"There are still many of us out there who believe that hiring candidates based on their race is not healthy for society, the company, or any individual candidate. That opinion is largely being stamped out, by design, in management at the orgs I'm talking about.
This has nothing to do with not wanting to step up and manage."
Personally I think I like blind job applications (ie where the name, ethnicity, gender, age etc of the job applicants is held unknown for the interviewers, as long as possible), which it seems to me that you like too
"Oh yeah, I totally know what you are saying"
"mmm hmmm"
"Interesting I hadnt thought about it like that before".
It is your ego or something else that makes it hard for you to do this.
It sucks you feel you have to do that just to survive your job. That's a toxic culture. These woke types feel you should bring your whole self to work, express yourself freely etc. One rule for me, another for thee. Agreeing with someone's worldview everyday when you actually disagree is bad for your ego. What's good for your ego is being authentic. I get what you mean about the need to be right all the time is a sign of a weak ego though. Though I don't have that, which is why I mostly don't bother talking about politics at work.
> "Oh yeah, I totally know what you are saying"
> "mmm hmmm"
> "Interesting I hadnt thought about it like that before".
That's different to actually agreeing. I would never explicitly agree with someone just to placate them at work. How do you think I've survived San Francisco for the last three years? I usually go with agreeing when I actually agree and not bothering to talk about it if I don't think they're mature enough to handle me disagreeing, which is pretty often. But I'm never, ever, going to agree with someone's drastically different worldview just to do my job that's totally unrelated. Nobody should have to put up with that.
I think people can cultivate a "I'm keeping my cover up" mentality that helps, but I really do believe it has more costs than you're presenting, and it's not just about "ego" which is a very negatively loaded phrasing.