[throwaway8766]

I'm extremely aware of this as someone who is socially conservative in terms of abortion, gay marriage, trans issues, etc (seriously not trying to start a flame war).

It's weird knowing that a large portion of the country has similar values to me, but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable. It doesn't matter that these things have zero impact on my behavior at work; you just can't say that you believe certain things are right/wrong if it goes against norms.

[ak_yo]

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) gay marriage is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me.

It's not that you can't have these opinions or voice them -- but it's also not the case that the people who are most affected by those opinions are going to feel OK about it.

[throwaway8766]

I totally empathize with this perspective. It would never be appropriate for coworkers to criticize (directly or indirectly) your lifestyle, identity, or personal decisions.

With regards to your statement "I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me.", in many ways I totally respect that concern.

But I also think it may be symptomatic of how our approach to these topics has become non-constructive. We've too closely tied support for a person with support for everything they do/believe. To my thinking, whether I take you seriously or want to work with you has nothing to do with the aforementioned topics, and entirely with how you behave/execute at work. And if I'm going to undercut you at work because I disagree with your beliefs, the issue isn't that I disagree with you, it's that I'd be willing to undercut anyone I work with.

[ak_yo]

That's totally fair -- and I appreciate that you're willing to engage seriously about these things!

Your last point is well-taken. It may even be the case these days that the majority of people who hold views similar to yours think the way you do. But I think we need to take into account the uncertainty that people in these situations face. It's hard to know what the other person is thinking -- and if all you know is that person's opinion, it's hard to know what's going on when you're not looking. Bigotry is often dressed up in talk and behavior that seems polite, even respectful at first glance, but that is ultimately materially harmful.

For example, I think a lot of LGBTQ people from religious backgrounds have had an experience of being told that their family or community will "love the sinner, but hate the sin" -- and then subsequently being subjected to unfair and harmful treatment (bullying, psychological abuse, ostracism, being disowned).

[throwaway8766]

You as well!

This is a really good reminder that there is indeed a tragic past of marginalized groups being treated poorly and receiving harm/violence. And there still is in certain areas, meaning that even though my standpoint may be that "of course I value them as a person", from the recipient's standpoint that cannot be assumed, and indeed it may be safer not to. This is super important to keep in mind, and at times may be worth stating explicitly (if the topic comes up/is appropriate) when talking about this with folks. I can't assume they know I believe this.

[conanbatt]

> How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral?

Isn't that a restriction you are putting on yourself? As I see it, it is your requirement that someone has to share your point of view, and to get it to be so has to be your cost, not theirs.

Everyone things something someone else is doing or thinking is immoral all the time. It even has the composition problem: I think its immoral to sabotage people because you think its immoral! Thus who is the immoral!

> It's not that you can't have these opinions or voice them -- but it's also not the case that the people who are most affected by those opinions are going to feel OK about it.

I agree. There is a price you pay when you have a contrarian view point. You must. However today that is not vocal disagreement, its firing people and exile. Some twitter mob victims have become unemployable. Thats not reasonable to me.

[gkya]

I guess this is a cultural thing. As an irreligious person in a mostly religious country (Turkey), I don't really feel anxious sharing the same workspace or classroom with religious people, unless they are murderous/violent fundamentalists. Apart from that, about every person I encounter have ideas different to mine, also WRT what's moral or not. A vegan might think it's immoral to consume meat, a pious person might think it's immoral to not believe in the one true God, a conservative person might think that fiddling with marriage undermines family values, et cetera, ad infinitum. I eat meat, am irreligious, and support marriage to be something the individuals define for themselves[1]. Should I avoid all the vegans, all the religious, and all the conservative people? Is it practical at all to only coexist with people similar to us? Should we part ways with anybody that disagrees us? Most of my family is somewhat religious Muslims, and some practising Christians, should I just dump them because they think my irreligiousness is immoral and I'm sinning?

Well my answer is no. See, I'm secure of my ideas, and respect people's ideas, and am not reluctant to hear criticism about the way I live my life or what ethical values or philosophical stances I have. And I prefer living among everyone no matter what they think of the way I live. Otherwise it's living in herds. But I should respect that the US society is transforming and maybe it's expectable that these particularly fragile topics like gender issues or racial issues are very hard to discuss. But if people like you are going to avoid anti-marriage-equality people, what you'll end up is going to be segregation and polarisation, which will only alienate you among them and them among you, undermining society and progress. The fact is no matter how logical or correct your opinion is, one has to convince others if the question regards them. Otherwise all the glory, should you win at your cause, is going to be temporary---until the opposers are going to be strong enough to undo what you did. And you end up with a bipartisan vicious cycle.

[1] Actually I beleive that all the marraiges should count as civil unions for the state, and that the persons themselves should define what it means and how it is lived.

[defen]

I work with vegans who think the fact that I use and consume animal products is immoral. They regularly make smug or passive-aggressive comments. And frankly I don't give a shit, and it doesn't stop us from working together.

[macrael]

There is not a long history of vegans killing people for their meat eating beliefs. You are wrong to equate the two.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_violence_against_LG...

[prepend]

But isn’t it simplistic to equate all transphobic people with murderers who commit violence against trans people?

Would you also be scared of working with men because they typically commit homicides more than women?

I think being afraid of your life simply because someone is a bigot who hasn’t exhibited any violent behavior is on you, not the bigot. A small number of bigots are violent and dangerous, that doesn’t mean all are.

[DoreenMichele]

But isn’t it simplistic to equate all transphobic people with murderers who commit violence against trans people?

When your life is on the line, it is generally wise to err on the side of caution. If you assume someone openly transphobic is a threat to your life and you are wrong, you are at worst being rude to them. If you assume they aren't a threat to you and are wrong, you may end up dead (or maimed or otherwise egregiously harmed).

With those stakes on the table, the only logical thing to do is to vet people you can trust, not give assholes the benefit of the doubt that maybe they are merely assholes and won't violently assault and/or murder you.

[prepend]

By that reasoning you should avoid everyone right? Because all people have a potential for violence.

The odds of a trans person being murdered by a transphobic person are phenomenally low. I think you need to balance risk vs return. Just like driving a car has costs and risks it may be worth it to get to the grocery store.

[perl4ever]

A bigot, by what I think is a reasonable definition, is someone whose prejudices are resistant to contrary evidence. If someone is irrational in that way, then it is rational for me not to trust them, especially if their prejudices concern me directly. The fact that everyone, including me, has their own prejudices is not germane.

If someone is angry about something all the time that really (from my POV) shouldn't concern them, it doesn't make them a murderer that should be locked up right now, no, but it could nevertheless reasonably make me wonder if they are dangerous or will "go postal" at some point.

[prepend]

That’s an interesting perspective. Do you feel the same about other groups than bigots? What about people with mental illness? Would you not want to work with a schizophrenic in case they forget to take their meds?

Do you think religious people are irrational? Are you one those people who freak out when a Muslim steps onto the subway? It seems like your line of reasoning would mean you don’t want any Muslims working at your company. That’s pretty messed up.

Comically, thinking that bigots or Muslims might go postal at some point is highly irrational. It’s like worrying about meteor strikes. So since you’re irrational, you might snap. Therefore people with your mindset should avoid working with you?

[ak_yo]

I'd encourage you to think of this from the perspective of the person who's fearing for their life. It's rational to assume that the likelihood of someone potentially harming you is much higher if they're vocally expressing hatred about your identity.

[prepend]

It the fear is irrational, then it’s really not that wise to try to think from their persective. Since that irrationally might make someone flip. Like those people who self radicalize.

Now, this is quite different if someone is expressing or advocating violence. But some old catholic lady being against gay marriage represents zero threat of violence. Especially if she isn’t vocally expressing the hatred at work, but does something outside of work.

The issue I have is that simply expressing disagreement “I hate class X” is not a threat compared to “I want to cause grevious harm to class X.”

[backpropaganda]

Conservatives who are against say gay marriage aren't necessarily saying they hate gays. There are lots of completely benign reasons why people might believe that gay marriage shouldn't be a thing.

[conanbatt]

What does that have to do with it. The history of it doesnt make it less or more immoral.

[Veelox]

Little late to the discussion so I am not sure this will be seen...

I think I can change two works of your statement and make it a criticism of the Bay Area.

From my perspective, I don't want to work in an environment where people are voicing their opinion that (e.g.) supporting Trump is illegitimate or wrong. How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral? I would have an incredibly hard time believing that that person was taking me seriously, really wanted to work with me, wasn't going to undercut me, or trusted me.

It's not that you can't have these opinions or voice them -- but it's also not the case that the people who are most affected by those opinions are going to feel OK about it.

The issue I have with this perspective is that it is not applied equally. I do think you should get protection but I think that same protection should be applied to all groups. Next week I could say in front of my team "All Trump supporters are deranged psychopaths." I would get a few odd looks, my manager might tell my privately to tone it down. If I said the same thing about LQBT folk I would guess I have a 50% chance of being fired.

This feels like a double standard to me and makes me question if the people who support diversity and inclusion really mean it or if they only want what they approve.

[dguaraglia]

It's interesting that you'd compare supporting Trump with being LGBTQ, part of a minority or a woman. One is a conscious decision, the other one is part of who one is. You might be a Trump supporter today and a Trump detractor tomorrow, but minorities don't get to change their gender identification, skin color or the reproductive organs they were born with. Trying to compare the two is ludicrous.

The victimization complex Trump supporters seem to have internalized is such a bizarre thing.

[alien_at_work]

>How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral?

So everyone needs to ensure they hold no oppinions you might find offensive or be homeless? It goes both ways: how am I supposed to work with someone who thinks it's ok to ostracize people for personal beliefs?

[ak_yo]

I agree, we're making the same general point -- it does seem crazy to ask someone to "ensure they hold no offensive opinions". So why, for example, should the opinions of the person who wants to speak their mind about the immorality of gay marriage get precedence over the opinions of the person who thinks they should be allowed to get married?

[alien_at_work]

I agree with that. "Don't go around pissing off co-workers" is a sensible rule. But it's also our responsibility to not look for reasons to be offended. If you ask me about something I'm not going to lie. But I'm not going to shove it in your face either, if I think it might offend.

[merloen]

I’m an atheist. I’ve worked with people who thought I’m going to hell. What am I going to do, get them all fired?

No. Just be polite and respectful to your colleagues. Not every stone needs to be turned.

[longerthoughts]

And it is your right not to work with that person, whether that means you choosing to leave or take internal action depending on circumstances (e.g. threats). However, who is entirely exempt from ostracizing others for their beliefs? For every person there is some universe of beliefs that are seen as such a threat to their reality, principles, or well-being that they will fight those beliefs and their representatives. That universe of beliefs may differ in size or relative merit on the basis of evidence for each person, but it exists.

[colordrops]

I work with people like that all the time. I don't give a shit. As long as they aren't doing anything to directly harm me, then let them have their stupid opinion. It's better than the alternative of social oppression, because I'm sure I have some stupid opinions as well.

[backpropaganda]

> How am I supposed to work with someone who thinks a huge part of my life is immoral?

Have you never worked with people with different religious beliefs?

[bradleyjg]

> but in a major city I can never mention these things or I'll immediately become unemployable.

The situation isn't great right now, I agree. But wild exaggeration doesn't help. It just makes people that you might be able to convince that the situation isn't great dismiss everything you are saying because of that wild exaggeration. Or at least some of those people, there may be an age divide here. But the point is if you want to be maximally persuasive you should avoid wild exaggeration.

I live in a major city in the US. I know two or three quite vocal Trump supporters. Yes, they face social sanctions. Yes, it might affect their career on the margin when it comes time to look at e.g. who to promote or who to lay off. No they aren't unemployed, much less unemployable.

[throwaway8766]

I appreciate the feedback. That wasn't intended to be an exaggeration, that is often how I perceive the situation (look at Brendan Eich), but it is certainly fair to consider whether that perception truly reflects reality.

[rgossiaux]

I think you're missing a key distinction. The problem is not that merely that you hold a political belief-- as you say, this by itself is over-the-top and unreasonable.

The problem rather is that your particular political belief is viewed as being actively hostile towards people themselves or towards their friends or family or others. Voicing opposition towards gay marriage comes across as an attack on all gay people. That's where the reaction comes from.

A political belief that's not treated as openly hostile towards others (for example, supporting charter schools or something) doesn't get this reaction, of course. It's not merely that "you just can't say that you believe certain things are right/wrong if it goes against norms"; you're missing the nuance here.

[cookiecaper]

The issue is that with just a little bit of lather, it's possible to construe virtually any controversial opinion as "an attack" on the people that may be affected by it, however tangentially. Nothing in life is free and it is rare that there is a clean "perfect compromise" waiting to be discovered, which means that most trade-offs will have groups that can interpret the activity as hostile, even if their group is totally unaddressed ("Why does group Z get that thing and group Y only gets this thing?").

If we accept this argument that some opinions or positions are unconscionable because they are fundamentally "against" other people, we end up on a slippery slope, and the situation in SF is somewhere on that slope (in my opinion, nowhere near the bottom).

Everyone wants in on the sympathy train and everyone loves shaming and silencing their opponents. We have to be careful to actively protect civil dialogue from such encroachments, because while they may feel sympathetic and nice at the time, that self-righteous reward system gets put on a feedback loop and drowns out everything else.

If we've already seen people getting agitated into conflating arguments over the semantics and technicalities of a dry legal instrument like marriage with their individual right to self-existence and safety, that's proof of this phenomenon in itself.

[amsheehan]

What I would take away from that notion is that large is relative. A large portion of the country still has fewer people than New York City.

I am of course, not trying to start a flame war either, but my take on it is that those sorts of issues would be inappropriate to bring up at work or in a job interview in the first place, regardless of your position.

Based on your description, I believe I probably espouse the opposite position on those issues, and even though I work at a large tech company in NYC I still don't bring them up at work.

That said, I can totally see where you're coming from. I have a friend who ended up being a pretty staunch Donald Trump supporter, and I watched as a lot of colleagues ostracized him (even though he never really brought it up at work).

It takes hard work to see past issues that divide us. In the case of my friend, I always just try to focus on our shared interests. It's what has kept us friends.

In closing...there are of course different degrees of ideas that people will tolerate, and it may just be that large cities have spoken, and they don't want intolerant people in their ranks.

shrugs, walks away

[throwaway8766]

That's a great point and worth clarifying. I agree that neither side is super appropriate to bring up at work. I'm referring more so to circumstances like your friend who is a Trump supporter.

It also gets murkier nowadays because companies are expected to take stances on social issues, and with certain ones are criticized when they don't.

[mikeash]

Companies have always been expected to take stances on social issues. Within living memory, companies in many parts of the country were required by law to segregate their customers by race. In other parts of the country, many companies were expected to do this as well, although it wasn't a legal requirement. Similar things were true for companies' treatment of same-sex couples, unmarried heterosexual couples, single women, and non-Christians.

The main difference I see is that the expected stances are more liberal than they used to be, and the penalties for failing to conform tend to be much less severe.

[elsif1]

If they don't want intolerant people in their ranks though, then what would that make them?

[amsheehan]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance

[lutorm]

I don't mind people being socially conservative, you can have whatever opinions you want about how you think people should live their lives or whatnot, and I'm perfectly willing to discuss them with you. I may not understand how you came to hold those views, but that likely goes both ways.

What I'm not OK with, however, is people not respecting other people's rights to have their own views. And that goes from calling them names to refusing to serve them in their business to refusing to offer them the health insurance they want.

Edit: Just to be clear, I agree that merely expressing views should not result in an online inquisition. That people whose views I generally agree with do makes me very uncomfortable, and I agree with Sam Altman that this makes it difficult to have serious discussions.

[longerthoughts]

I've lived in cities on both sides of the political coin and can comfortably say that this is consistent for both liberal-dominant and conservative-dominant cities. I think part of the problem is that a lot of the issues you mention are seen as moral rather than ideological because peoples' values become so deeply rooted once they've spent enough time in like-minded communities (and perhaps some of the issues were really a question of morality to begin with). Beyond that, there's a heightened degree of generalization of "the other" when you're in a homogeneous community - if you support anything that aligns with an opposing political party, people will tend to project other values onto you that are generally associated with that party, regardless of whether or not you've expressed them.

[CharlesMerriam2]

One of things no one talks about: correlations. I have seen several of people lose their careers after become right wing spokespeople. These people work in difficult, ambiguous fields including patent prosecution (IP Law) and network security analysis. The fields are all about considering probable outcomes from ambiguous or untrustworthy data. They weren't pushed from their jobs; they stopped being able to juggle the ideas. Both employer and employee wanted them to leave by the time the left. They never succeeded again.

This terrifies me.

[amsheehan]

Can you elaborate? I don't think I understand what you mean.

[observation]

He is claiming becoming more right wing makes somebody less likely to understand statistics.

Personally I think leftists, rightists and centrists are terrible at grokking stats because the human brain can't handle multifaceted realities very well.

It is possible for instance that all political positions are correct, even the apparently contradictory ones because they are part of the Elephant (the one with the blind men).