|
|
|
|
|
|
by phil21
3434 days ago
|
|
|
Let's say I disagree with you vehemently on this. I actually don't have an opinion (for the purposes of this comment) but I think there is a point to be had here the OP is trying to get at that is very important. You obviously were not in fear of career repercussions by posting your reply. I guarantee you that there are people reading your post now, who want to post a reasonable disagreement from the "conservative" viewpoint but will not because they are in (legitimate) fear of what negative affects it will have on their future employment. That is what I read as the OPs comment. Decades of that adds up, and I certainly have noticed on HN and other industry meeting places you are allowed to express politics as long as it's that of the majority. You can explain this from the point of view of every actor in the process acting rationally in their own self interest - but it still creates a problem of defacto silencing political belief, and even more importantly only letting those radical (or rich) enough to not care about social acceptance join the conversations as a dissenting opinion. That is troubling to me. When you only see one side feel free enough to take practical advantage of their right to free speech something is seriously wrong - and why I feel that the OP is far more correct in that this is more like war than political discourse at this point. I honestly don't know if you can walk it back, and the road that puts us on scares me. As someone who is seen as "neutral" in the workplace, I have people from both sides dump on me in private. There is a lot more common ground than most think, but as long as people live in fear of having genuine honest political arguments I simply cannot see these trends turning around. My personal anecdote is that it's getting worse over time - not better. Edit: spelling |
|
|
Actually, I am. I'm a college student, and this account is (provably!) linked to my real-life identity. Everything I say here will have consequences for me as I enter the job market. I may be a member of the political majority (or zeitgeist), but the vast majority of companies don't want to see any sort of political writing linked to their candidates. Hello, future talent scouts!
I regret that my potential responders feel as if they have been silenced. However, they are under no obligation to reveal their real-life identities on Hacker News. Moreover, I would not be justified in blaming them for choosing to remain anonymous regardless of their political views - it's even in my interest to be anonymous.
Apart from the above, there's nothing I can do to assuage an individual's discomfort in responding to me. I don't feel qualified to comment on workplace politics - I simply don't have experience in them.
Edit:
I guess I can respond to the idea of outside speech making its way into the workplace. As a general rule, I don't think that the things people say and believe in their free time should be used against them in hiring and workplace decisions.
That being said, I understand the practical need of companies to protect themselves from both liabilities (e.g., the PR disaster of hiring a neo-Nazi) and from workplace clashes (e.g., hiring someone who genuinely believes that the immigrants on their team shouldn't be there because of their race or religion). As a society, we need to figure out how to balance these concerns in a way that eliminates the discomfort on both sides of the isle.